Community Vitality Center Governance Board Meeting Minutes

Gold Room, ISU Memorial Union, Ames, IA, June 27, 2003

Present: Burt Chojnowski, Beth Danowsky, Jim Erb, Jane Halliburton, Mark Hamilton, Rick Morain, Steve Padgitt, Joan Philllips, Randy Pilkington, Severin Roberts, Carol Smith, Richard Warwick, Mark Edelman, Sandy Burke, Ellen Huntoon, Rand Fisher

Presenters: Drew Conrad, Maureen Elbert, Gary Sandholm

The meeting of the Community Vitality Center (CVC) Governance Board was called to order at 10:00 A.M. by Mark Hamilton, CVC Governance Board President. Hamilton asked those present to introduce themselves. Mark Edelman noted that Iowa Area Development Group, represented by Rand Fisher was going to complete the media contract since Audino & Associates were relocating to Florida.

Hamilton said that the minutes of the April 24, 2003 Governance Board meeting had been sent by email and also were posted on the web site. He asked for comments or corrections. Rick Morain moved and Joann Phillips seconded to approve the minutes as written. All members voted “I”; none opposed and the minutes of the April 24, 2003 Governance Board meeting were approved.

Hamlton asked for discussion on the agenda and Jane Halliburton moved to approve it with a second by Jim Erb. All members voted “I”; none opposed and the agenda was approved as written.

Edelman noted that there would be two presentations on community pilot projects that developed out of the Community Conversations on Entrepreneurship and two presentations on first-year CVC projects.

Gary Sandholm reported on the Southwest Iowa Multi-County Cluster Enterprise Facilitation Project that involved Adair, Audubon, Greene, Guthrie, and Shelby Counties. The CVC funds were allocated for assisting in the initial planning, invitations, and costs for the Sirolli introductory training workshop scheduled for next October.

Maureen Elbert reviewed the Kossuth County Intern Program. The internships usually are paid positions and they hope to attract young workers to stay in the area. The CVC funds are covering a number of intern networking events held during the Summer and to enhance the web site that provides information about the program and activities for the interns.

Drew Conrad gave an update on the project for Integrating Rural Areas into Iowa’s Cluster Strategy for Economic Development. Three pilot regions that were discussed were Southeast Iowa, Northwest Iowa, and the Carroll area.

Edelman and Sandy Burke provided an update on the Communities of Distinction Project. The eight communities that were selected are: Sioux Center, Cherokee, Bedford, Corning, Mt. Pleasant, Ft. Madison, Postville, and Guttenberg. The interviewing in these communities will be done during July and August.

Edelman began a discussion of three proposed amendments to the CVC Terms of Reference. Amendments need to have two readings before they can be approved and added to the Terms of Reference. This was the second reading of proposed Amendment 1 to “Section 3. Membership” first bullet to be revised to read as follows:

“A full Governance Board shall consist of at least 15, but not more than 27 members.” Erb moved to approve Amendment 1 with a second by Randy Pilkington. All members voted “I”; none opposed and the second reading of Amendment 1 was approved as written.

Edelman noted that this was the first reading of Amendment 2 which involves a system of rotating the Governance Board Chair and Vice Chair. Amendment 2 was approved by the Nominations Committee and recommended by the Executive Committee–to revise “Section 4. Organization” first bullet to read as follows:

“At the first CVC Board meeting of even numbered years, the CVC Board will elect a Chair, and Vice Chair, who shall serve a term of two years. In addition, the CVC Board shall also elect a Chair-Elect, and Vice Chair-Elect to facilitate rotation and continuity of board leadership. All Board Members are eligible to serve as Chair, except those representing government agencies, colleges and universities.”

Halliburton asked what was the definition of a government agency. Edelman thought that it would include state and federal agencies. Halliburton thought that most of the public would think that anything in the public sector, including elected officials such as herself, would fit into the category of government agency. Edelman said that perhaps it could be revised to say that those representing the designated standing members of the Board would not be able to serve as Chair.

Hamilton asked if there was discussion on proposed Amendment 3 which was recommended to make the Terms of Reference consistent with proposed Amendment 2. Amendment 3 said to delete “Section 4. Organization” second bullet last sentence which reads: “The Nominating Committee will also provide nominations for Chair, Vice Chair, at the last meeting of the year.” Add a new seventh bullet to “Section 5. Nominations Committee” that reads as follows: “The Nominating Committee shall provide nominations for Chair-elect, Vice Chair-elect during the first board meeting of even numbered years and will provide nominations as may become necessary for leadership positions that may become vacant.” Revise sixth bullet to “Section 5. Nominations Committee” by replacing “July 1st” with “June 1st” so that the Terms are consistent with actual practice regarding the first CVC Board meeting of the year.

Steve Padgitt noted that the resources for the CVC are public resources and the freedom to speak is tempered by these circumstances. If the chair is not able to serve and if it would be the Vice Chair serving in place of the Chair then since the Chair can’t be from the public sector, should the Vice Chair also not be from the public sector? Halliburton said that this may be a built in conflict in that the Vice Chair does need to be able to serve for the Chair. Padgitt suggested that the Chair-elect could serve in place of the Chair. Halliburton wondered if in that case there would be a need for a Vice chair and she didn’t think the Amendments would work as written. Hamilton said that there may be a need for Amendments 2 and 3 to go back to the drawing board. Hamilton recessed the meeting for lunch.

Hamilton called the Board meeting back together and suggested that the discussion of Amendments 2 and 3 be noted and sent back to the Nominating Committee to review the suggestions. Halliburton moved to send Amendments 2 and 3 back to the Nominating Committee. Pilkington seconded the motion; all members voted “I”; none opposed and Amendments 2 and 3 will be reconsidered by the Nominating Committee.

Edelman reviewed the report of the Nominating Committee. The Committee had approved the nomination of Mark Hamilton for CVC Board Chair and Beth Danowsky for CVC Board Vice chair. Severin Roberts moved to accept the Nominating Committee’s report and Pilkington seconded. All members voted “I”; none opposed and the Nominating Committee report was accepted with Hamilton elected as CVC Board Chair and Danowsky as CVC Vice chair.

Hamilton said that the Executive Committee had discussed the Interim designation that had been assigned to the Director’s position. The Executive Committee was recommending that the Interim designation be removed and that the status of Edelman’s position be changed to that of Director. Pilkington moved to accept the Executive Committee’s recommendation and the second to the motion was made by Erb. Padgitt said that Stan Johnson had already made the request for the change to the Provost and it was working its way along. Padgitt also said that Edelman is regarded as the CVC Director and he is beginning to interact with other Centers and Directors around campus. Hamilton remarked that there was still a need to keep a distinction between the CVC and ISU as separate entities. Ellen Huntoon noted that there were some legal implications in the control of the CVC and the Director’s position and the fiscal responsibility for the CVC but that the relationship has been satisfactory. Hamilton called the question and asked for a vote on the motion. All members voted “I”; none opposed and the motion to remove the Interim designation from the Director’s position was approved.

Because Huntoon needed to leave early, Edelman asked her for an update on the federal funding. Huntoon said that after the last Board meeting she had written a note to Senator Harkin telling how impressed she had been with the assistance and ways of helping rural Iowa that the CVC had developed. She said that she would characterize the CVC as one of the “gems” of help entities. She also said that she has been wanting to go after an increase in funding but with the current budget issues she was not sure there can be an increase but she would go after it anyway. She reviewed the status of the US Senate and House budget process. Halliburton asked about the status of the Rural Development portion of last year’s Farm Bill and Huntoon reviewed its status as well as ISU’s administrative cost and indirect charges policy.

Hamilton proceeded to a discussion of the media relations contract. He said that the Executive Committee had approved shifting the media relations contract to Iowa Area Development Group. Rand Fisher is President of this organization. Mark Edelman and Rand Fisher had been working on developing a professional services agreement. Two concepts under development are the development of a CVC membership base and also a CVC awards program. Fisher talked about developing a membership base and its importance to the existence and perpetuation of the CVC. They had developed some questions for the Board (see handout) about who should be targeted for membership. Edelman suggested that the Board members take the handout sheet with the questions and think about them and fill them out before the next Board meeting. Then the questions can be reviewed again at the next meeting.

Fisher said that the membership concept would help broaden the organization and that the Board should think about individuals to be involved, what the benefits to members would be, what membership would entail, what organizational affiliations there might be, what would constitute initial membership, and how to quantify what they were doing. Edelman mentioned the Iowa Environmental Council and that he had picked up their membership list and how they had structured their membership had looked it over as an example.

Edelman said that they are also working on an awards concept. Fisher said that developing awards would be an opportunity to recognize and note successes. It would also be a way for the CVC to share its mission, vision, and bring attention to successes around the state. He also had approached the Iowan magazine and they might be interested in such recognitions. Edelman noted that the bulleted award concepts on the handout were just suggestions and that there might actually be only 5 or so awards given. There would have to be consideration given to community size eligibility, cash award possibilities, and other issues. He added that right now there wasn’t any excess staffing capacity for building a membership base or an awards program.

Halliburton asked how the awards would define a community in that would Kossuth County be considered a community because it went beyond a given town’s boundaries? Phillips thought that regional collaboration would be an important question to consider and Roberts wondered if collaboration should be a criteria for an award. Fisher said that an award could honor a larger, broader collaboration beyond a single community. He also wondered if this was replicable and if there could be some criteria that could be emulated and reproduced by others. Padgitt expressed a concern that at this point the CVC had a strong focus on entrepreneurship and that there should be care taken that it doesn’t become diluted or become too broad. Fisher suggested that there might be a subcommittee for membership and awards and also that he would like to bring in the Iowan magazine and begin talking with them. Hamilton asked if there would be an entity that could assist with this and Fisher said that might be possible. Edelman said that he would work on these initiatives with Fisher and report back to the Executive Committee and then to the Board. Fisher said that he was reporting on these issues and the media contract to his board next week. Edelman said that an external donation has been made to support the media relations initiative from Mark Hamilton and his publishing company.

Edelman reviewed the major points of the philanthropy service bureau concept as discussed at the last Board meeting. The University of Iowa Nonprofit Resource Center was still willing to do the inventory of nonprofits in the state. There was a proposed timeline for the wealth study included with the handout. Burke reviewed the Nebraska wealth study information provided to the Board and discussed the steps in the methodology used by Nebraska. In reviewing the wealth study timeline, Edelman said that the USDA still hadn’t given final approval to the CVC’s second year proposal and that the funds had not yet been released. He did not want to go ahead with second year projects until the approval had been received. He recommended that the Board’s Taskforce for the wealth study meet again.

Fisher commented that this was compelling from the research and marketing aspects. He said he had been at a meeting with Bank of America officials and had shared the concepts of the wealth study with them. Fisher said that they were interested in the study and had talked about the possibility of offering their research economics section for the analysis. Padgitt thought that the wealth study needed to be done specifically for Iowa so that it would be accepted and seen as valid. He also said to get people at ISU to review the results ahead of the release rather than having them criticize afterward. Morain said that his read of the Iowa Values bill was that it would not kick in for two years unlike the original thought that it would start this July. He said that because of this, setting the conference for the philanthropy initiative back would not be a problem nor would there be competition with the other philanthropy initiative.

Chojnowski commented that there had been data on giving released in the Chronicle of Philanthropy. Burke said that she had been given access to those data by Steve Noah at the ISU Foundation. Erb said he had wondered about the time frame of the Legislature’s foundation bill and whether they could start on that or have to wait two years. Edelman thought that it was refreshing to know that there was more time to get started with this. He also said that despite some disagreements we needed to work with the Iowa Council on Foundations as much as possible. Right now the CVC doesn’t have any staff persons for the philanthropy initiative. He thought there should be some communication with the Nebraska Foundation about the steps for developing and implementing the service bureau concept. Erb added that the legislature would probably tweak the foundations bill next year as well. Smith thought that even though the state legislation was passed, it didn’t negate the need for the CVC’s foundation or for the wealth study. Fisher added that the CVC really owns a part of this within Iowa and its policy direction and he commended Edelman and the others for their work.

Edelman said that there should be some motions on the issues that have been discussed. Phillips moved to go ahead with the membership and awards initiatives and Morain seconded. All members voted “I”; none opposed and the motion to establish membership criteria and awards was approved.

Erb moved to go ahead with the concept of a philanthropy service bureau and with the timeline of the wealth study. Smith seconded and all members voted “I”; none opposed and the motion was approved.

Edelman reviewed the concept piece on the CVC Entrepreneurship Initiative. Phillips moved to approve and Smith seconded. Hamiltion said that this was the compilation of the work that had been done. All members voted “I”; none opposed and the motion on the CVC Entrepreneurship Initiative concept was approved.

Edelman talked about the proposed entrepreneurial project of the Fairfield Entrepreneurial Association. Chojnowski said that the feedback from the May conference on venture capital had been good and that IDED was very interested in the proposed workshop program. Morain asked how the CVC could facilitate this and Chojnowski said that promoting and tapping into some of the entrepreneur projects. Edelman said that the USDA Rural Business Investment Program could help get a statewide network set up and that what they were wanting to do in Fairfield fit well with what the CVC was wanting to do. Chojnowski added that Senator Harkin’s office would like to see the pilot project get started in Iowa and that the proposed conference should happen sometime in the Fall. Hamiton, Edelman, and Padgitt discussed the possibilities of videotaping presentations for future use. Smith asked what was meant by the ecosystem and Chojnowski said that it was the linkages, environment, and venture capital needed for this. Chojnowski also passed out copies of the new Fairfield strategic plan. Hamilton asked for a motion to support the Fairfield initiative and to move ahead with it and Danowsky so moved with Padgitt seconding. All members voted “I”; none opposed and the motion on the Fairfield initiative was approved.

Edelman said that the CVC had a request from Iowa Learning Partners group that was trying to organize community forums on health care during the coming year. They were not asking for funding at this point, but were asking the CVC to serve as a home entity and as a fiscal agent for the forums. He went on to say that the CVC did have a foundation account that could be used for this. Phillips asked if they just wanted the CVC as a pass through but Edelman said yes primarily. Padgitt expressed concerns that this would take the CVC in a direction as a service entity that he had not envisioned for the CVC. Edelman said that the CVC was viewed as a broader based entity than ISEA.

Padgitt thought that this would take the CVC away from its focus and he asked if health care was going to be a focus. Padgitt also had concerns about staffing. Danowsky asked if they had talked to the Rural Health Association. Smith said she had concerns as well and suggested the Bureau of Rural and Community Health in the Iowa Department of Public Health. Erb commented that there are a lot of groups that need a fiscal agent and that there is the risk of accountability. Edelman agreed that the health-based organization were needed for legitimization of the forums and that perhaps the rural health association would be a better match as a fiscal agent. Roberts moved to decline the request. Smith said that we could decline to be the fiscal agent by not taking any action. Roberts withdrew her motion. No action was taken.

Edelman reported on the CVC annual performance review by ISU Administrators. The reviewers felt the Center start up was going well. There was not a great likelihood about increasing the staff in this tight budget time although he was requesting a part-time person for the philanthropy and entrepreneurship initiatives and was also looking into ways of expanding the CVC’s office space.

Morain wanted to know where decisions stood with the indirect charges. Padgitt said that last year it was 0%, this year it was 13%, but 26% was in line for next year’s budget. Morain said that 26% would be $40,000 and he thought that they could give better office space. Padgitt added that there was now a policy for the indirect charges that some of it would come back to the project and that they had also explored an alliance with the College of Business as there were some synergies there. Hamilton said that it might be a plus to shift but Smith wondered about the consequences on campus of moving Colleges. Padgitt said that Edelman had tenure with the Department of Economics but that there also were faculty with overlapping appointments.

Hamilton said that dates had been suggested for next year’s Board meetings and that ideas were needed for the next Board meeting. Edelman said that there may be some reports on projects but the focus will be on the process for developing project proposals for next year.

Morain asked about whether the Director planned on recommending another RFP process. Edelman asked for board guidance about whether there should be a general RFP or perhaps one targeted to focus on specific items that the CVC has chosen as areas that it wishes to be involved with. Padgitt said that he would like to see the Director and the Executive Committee put together the pros and cons on the RFP process and Edelman said that he could do that.

Hamilton asked if the 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM time frame was all right for the Board meetings. Burke suggested that the Board meeting when project proposals were to be approved go from 9:30 AM to 3:30 PM to allow more time for discussion. Smith agreed that the time needed for that meeting needed to be longer.

Edelman distributed the travel expense vouchers to Board members. He also handed out the oath for Board members and emphasized the need for attendance at meetings.

Board Meeting Schedule: Oct. 10, 2003; January 9, 2004, April 16, 2004; June 25, 2004.

Hamilton asked for a motion to adjourn and Padgitt moved with a second by Roberts. All members voted “I”; none opposed. Meeting Adjourned.