|
Bruce Anderson |
Walt Crosby |
Barb Schultze |
|
Lisa Bendixen |
Steve Dare |
Don Shobrys |
|
John Benedict |
Monica Ellis |
Mikhal Sipis |
|
Richard Brewer |
Jack Fraily |
Linda Ystueta |
|
Emily Brown |
Suzanne Rommelfanger |
|
|
Shawna Chang |
Michael Schoen |
|
Both the Alumni Fund (Monica Ellis) and Resource Development (Steve Dare) were represented at the meeting in addition to alumni/nae and DAPER staff.
Our discussion flowed across four related areas:
These notes recap the major points made across these four areas rather than presenting the chronological order in which points were made. This recap is followed by a summary of recent FOD activities and a final section that captures other Constructive Comments made in the course of our meeting. I didn’t always cature the name of the person who made a key observation or comment so I apologize for my omissions and any incorrect attributions.
Michael Schoen led a discussion on rounding out the board membership to our target of 40. He noted that we are light on members from classes prior to 1990, and on representatives from baseball, Men’s basketball, ice hockey, swimming, tennis, water polo and men’s volleyball. Michael identified a prospect affiliated with baseball and asked for other suggestions from Board members.
The question was raised on whether we should recruit members with intramural or club sports backgrounds. Tom Stagliano was identified as a potential candidate. Jim Evens, a former MITAA president, was identified as a possible candidate and as a contact for other former MITAA presidents who might also be candidates.
Bruce Andersen initiated a discussion on the role of the
Executive Committee. There was a general
concern that the Board in it’s entirety might be too
unwieldy to manage day to day activities.
In addition, the objectives of the FOD, as expressed in the bylaws, do
not line up with how the committees are defined so a coordination mechanism is
required. The consensus was to expand
the Executive Committee to
This led to a discussion of the roles of the Vice Presidents. The group raised a concern that the workload of the VP for Fund Raising could be significantly higher than for the other VP’s since fund raising includes both a broad based appeal that is executed in conjunction with the Alumni Fund and development of prospects with high gift potential which occurs in conjunction with Resource Development. Don Shobrys commented that he was surprised at the lack of discussion over how the VP’s roles were defined, since the initial descriptions were only a well intentioned guess.
Two specific suggestions were made with respect to the roles of the VP’s.
Development of a business plan ties into a current effort by Resource Development and the Alumni Fund to sharpen messaging around athletics. The effort is in progress and they are looking for a liaison with the FOD. Walt Crosby volunteered as a source of alumni feedback. Michael Schoen and Don Shobrys also offered to participate until the VP of Fund Raising is recruited. Resource Development and the Alumni Fund are also encouraged to use the FOD as a focus group in this effort, communication with the group via the mail list (fofdaper-board@mit.edu).
Given the time it is taking to sort out the bylaws and recruit officers, Showna Chang expressed concern that the initial board members and officers would be in office for less than a 9 months if the first elections are for terms starting July 1, 2004. This leads to the suggestion that we defer the first formal elections until 2005.
Several potential VP candidates were mentioned and Michael
Schoen and Don Shobrys will follow up with them. The group suggested that the Secretary be
local to the
The group suggested that we give the members of the FOD an opportunity to identify their areas of interest and the committees they would like to be part of.
The consensus was that the bylaws are not perfect but, with the changes described above, will be good enough to move forward with. The changes described will be incorporated in the bylaws which will be presented to the current FOD members for final review and a vote on acceptance. We will consider using Yahoo Groups services to facilitate the review and voting.
The NCAA has institutional control guidelines for organizations associated with intercollegiate athletic programs. Their requirements on Institutional Governance will not affect us so long as we stay away from “advising or establishing athletics policies and making policy decisions.” However, the members of the FOD are viewed as “Representatives of Athletics Interests” by the NCAA. This means that there are rules we have to follow and that MIT is held responsible for our actions. Guidelines for our actions should be issued shortly by DAPER.
The priorities assigned to near term tasks are as follows.
1. Incorporate the (hopefully final) changes to the bylaws and distributed them for review and approval.
2. Identify and recruit candidates for the VP slots who will develop business plans for their areas.
3. After the VPs have been recruited, recruit additional FOD Board members to reach our goal of 40.
Don Shobrys met with Larry Benedict, Dean of Student Life, to discuss the FOD and how it relates to the office of the Dean of Student Life. Larry is very supportive of our efforts, and actively worked with the athletic program at Johns Hopkins. He raised the possibility of providing support for our activities from students performing specific research activities and, in the longer term, from professional members of the DSL staff.
A work group was created to look at web related issues around the Friends of DAPER. Darcy Prather leads that effort, and the work group includes Emily Brown, Walt Crosby and Bob Ferrara.
A second work group was created to look at metrics around alumni giving to athletics. Lila French is leading this effort along with Emily Brown, Even Efstations and Barb Schultze. That group is working with the Alumni Fund to obtain some initial data extracts.
Michael Schoen and Don Shobrys presented an overview of the FOD to the Alumni Fund Board. Their response was very positive, and the Alumni Fund will serve as a source of expertise, ideas, and data for development of a board based fund raising effort.
DAPER identified Richard Brewer as the liaison person who will work with the FOD.
Alumni attendance at this meeting was down in part because a we ran into conflicts with a number of sessions grouped around the Alumni Leadership Conference (ALC) that are not actually on the ALC agenda. We need to be aware of these “off agenda” session if future FOD meetings are scheduled around the ALC.
A good way of opening future meetings might be to review similar efforts at another school.
We could increase alumni awareness of athletics and the FOD by having a FOD table at reunions.
We are still looking for mechanisms for group interactions
that provide alternatives to meeting in