Minutes
Board of Trustees
First Unitarian Society
Madison, Wisconsin
July 19, 2006
7:05 p.m.
Lower Meeting House
Present:
Officers:
Pat Anderson, President
Laurie Joiner, President-Elect
Tom Detmer, Secretary
Alan Knox, Past President
Council Trustees:
Kathy Luker
John Mathis
Nancy Kosseff
Jim Christensen
Ministers:
Michael Schuler, Minister
Kelly Crocker, Associate Minister
Scott Prinster, Associate Minister
Staff:
Susan Koenig, Church Administrator
Observers:
Visitors:
Craig McComb, Capital Campaign Co-Chair
Donna Hartshorne, Archivist
Ann Smiley, Friends of the Meeting House
CALL TO ORDER
After an
opening and chalice lighting by Laurie Joiner, Pat
Anderson called the meeting to order at time 7:05 p.m. and reviewed the agenda.
CONSENT ITEMS
MOTION by Laurie Joiner and seconded by John Mathis to approve the minutes of June 14, 2006. A brief request was made to change one item in the minutes (Exhibit 1) by adding Laurie Joiner to the list of attendees. Hearing no further requests the motion to approve the minutes CARRIED.
CAPITAL CAMPAIGN REPORT
Craig McComb suggested that we need to decide on a policy about naming rooms and other parts of the the meeting house, particularly because this issue is likely to arise in the upcoming Capital Campaign. This ought to be a policy discussed and approved by the board.
Michael Schuler gave a brief background on what was discussed and done concerning the Gaebler Library, which was named for Max and Carolyn Gaebler. It was decided that no rooms or spaces should be named for people but a special exception was made for the Gaeblers.
Alan Knox underscored that we want a clear policy for the upcoming campaign and we do not want to be reactive to a particular donation that could be proposed. We basically had an informal policy not to name any room in the historic meeting house for any person at the time of Max Gaebler’s retirement. This previous policy does not have to be the guide for the new facility.
Kathy Luker indicated that she would not object to naming a room for a person who makes a substantial donation. Michael said he would like to make an exception for the auditorium. It is too much like naming a sports or other large venue after a person or company. Even naming the auditorium after a historic Unitarian seems inappropriate. The auditorium is a large communal spiritual space that is reserved for the spiritual community as a whole and we do not want the implication that it is tied in some way to one person or entity. The idea of a church taking a person’s name is different (e.g. James Reeb).
The use of a plaque was suggested and it is another opportunity to recognize a gift to the Society in lieu of the actual naming of a room.
The Board should have the right to review and approve any name to determine that it is appropriate for the beliefs and principles of the Society.
We do not want statements of philosophy attached to rooms as opposed to recognizing people. Laurie pointed out that we should also recognize generous gifts by an additional form of recognition that is something more than just permitting the naming of a space. It was agreed that this additional recognition is important.
Craig indicated that we need a more formal policy written out that goes beyond this Board discussion. The policy should include additional guidelines that indicate the levels of donations and what may be named for a given level of donation.
Another alternative for handling donations would be to use the Tree of Life approach to donations. Some Jewish congregations and other spiritual communities use this approach. There was considerable discussion about this approach and it was looked on favorably although it was not explicitly included in the policy that was adopted.
Pat Anderson took a straw poll of the Board and it was decided unanimously by those present that the policy allowing names rights applies to the new building only and not the auditorium. It includes both the naming of a room and the use of plaques or equivalent types of naming opportunities. Tom Detmer will draft an initial policy based on this decision and bring it back to the Board at the next meeting after sending it to John Mathis for editing. The policy will refer to a schedule of specific donation levels and what may be named that the Capital Campaign will work on and prepare for including in the policy.
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Pat Anderson referred to the Organizational Chart (Exhibit 2) and raised the question of whether or not the Steering Committee should continue or if the functions of the Steering Committee is addressed in some other way.
Michael provided some background on the Steering Committee and how it developed as a communication device and a decision making body at the staff level and when necessary non-policy decisions are required between Board meetings. It allows the ministers to consult with the President of the Society about crucial items that may arise before a Board meeting. This also allows the staff and the President to set the agenda for the next Board meeting by adding items that need to be brought to the Board.
Kathy Luker indicated that the Board as a whole may not get as much communication benefit from the Steering Committee as the one or two people attending may get. She is also concerned that the decision of what policies go to the Board may make the Steering Committee a de facto policy making body.
The Steering Committee (many people would prefer a different name and it has had different names over the years) serves as an advisory group with a dotted line relationship to the Board. It handles management decisions that the staff would like to discussion with the President of the Society and it does not involve itself with policy decisions.
We really need to define what a policy is. One of the undercurrent of this discussion is that we lack clarity in what items ultimately get referred to the Board and what the Steering Committee is authorized to decide along with the management of the Society. If we can get more precision on that point, then we should do better at figuring out what to get to the Board.
Basically, we see the need for an advisory group to work with the management team of the Society on behalf of the Board. There should be continual involvement by the president of the Society to both have involvement at the highest executive level of the Society and also to provide the best continuity possible. The committee involvement also needs to include the treasurer at budget time and we recognize that involvement by trustees at large is important to the function of the committee. However involvement by the trustees at large could rotate so that every trustee may be involved at some point in the management and Board interaction at this level. The trustee who attends the meeting should report to the Board on what was discussed. The committee should have a new name that is more fitting for its purpose.
Pat will draft up a proposed policy on this committee for the next meeting.
8:10 BREAK
8:20
ROLES OF THE AT-LARGE TRUSTEES
Kathy Luker explained why she had gotten interested in deciding how the at-large trustees could best serve the congregation. There are some fundamental questions that exist and are unanswered. What roles do these trustees serve? How should input from the congregation be obtained? There was a meeting on July 10 to discuss the role of the at-large trustees. Barb Avery had expressed a concern that the councils didn’t know what the Board was doing.
In addition it was noted that a new hierarchy of committees has developed to be involved with facilities development activities. There is a concern that we have little involvement between some of these levels of committees and various groups are acting autonomously when more communication and accountability would be desirable.
What is the best use of the time of the at-large trustees’ time to interact with the congregation and the councils and committees?
Pat asked how the council chairs feel about having a Board member present. There is a lack of clarity about these roles among the various parties. Susan believes that the new organizational chart would be news to a number of people, including those in various staff and leadership roles. The councils do not expect direction from the management team.
It may be important to get council chair reactions in the near future to see what consensus there is on how it expresses the roles of the parties.
The question of who directs who is an important one. This can vary by council. Some areas are more directed by staff because specific staff members are hired to do the tasks. Other areas are more collaborative. Susan said that accountability determines who is ultimately responsible. There was discussion about what is meant by accountability and no firm resolution on this question was reached.
The annual report provides some accountability from the councils. Michael said that we could work on our dashboard process. Jim Christensen has made a good start but it could be beefed up. Unity Church as a good dashboard report and we should look at that.
What should be done now? Kathy would rather not assign trustees to a council until there is a discussion about what the councils would like to see the Board members do.
This will have to be discussed further after more discussion with the councils.
FINANCIAL REPORTS
Susan reviewed the financial statement (Exhibit 3). The year end for 2005-2006 has not yet been closed but it is close. Our collections are a high percentage of the pledges made. We are unlikely to collect much more on the uncollected pledges. We are only about $18,000 under budget, which is not too bad given that we started out at $40,000 in the hole at the beginning of the year due to the prior year’s accounting error.
Pledges are close enough that it doesn’t make sense to create a large effort on a phone tree to follow up on pledges.
In 2007 we may try to move the pledge campaign to the fall of 2007 instead of waiting until the spring of 2008 in order to improve the timing of the pledge campaign. We will not do that this year because it would conflict with the capital campaign will will conduct this fall.
OTHER BUSINESS
The facilities planning committee charter will be taken up next month.
The resolution authorizing the Treasurer to purchase and sell securities on behalf of the Society was presented and read. See Exhibit 4.
MOTION to adopt the resolution by Alan Knox and seconded by Jim Christensen. CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by
to adjourn.
CARRIED
Meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Minutes by, Tom Detmer, First Unitarian Society Board Secretary
EXHIBITS
- Minutes from June 14, 2006
- FUS Organizational Chart
- Financial Statements
- Resolution to Authorize the Treasurer to Transfer Stock
