CVC Board Meeting

3PM Wednesday, October 20, 2005
Carrollton Inn, Carroll Iowa

Attendance: Mark Hamilton, Manuel Silva, Kurt Heidt, Mark Edelman, Carol Richardson Smith, Sandy Ehrig, Rick Morain, Craig Hertl, Dal Grooms, Sandy Burke, Mark Reisinger Added by Phone at 4PM were: Nancy Van Milligen, Rand Fisher, Robert Bauman, Tim Borich, and guest Steve Schaaf, President, Iowa Council of Foundations.

Meeting was called to order by Board Chair Rick Morain at 3:07

Minutes Approval: Morain indicate a spelling correction to September minutes in reference to Steve Schaaf, President, Iowa Council of Foundations. Motion to approve Minutes as corrected by Heidt, second by Hamilton, Motion Approved.

Introduction of new board members - Edelman provided background of CVC, and asked board members to introduce themselves to new board members and invited new board members to provide a little background for others.

Board Reports:

Morain reported on meeting with Steve Schaaf, President of Iowa Council of Foundations. Meeting was positive and several ideas for partnering were discussed. The conclusion was that the Iowa Council of Foundations provides many possibilities for future partnerships even though there has been a difference in initial orientation toward statewide philanthropy initiatives.

Morain reported on the history of CVC's involvement in Iowa's philanthropy movement - as board member on Northern Great Plains, former NE Lt. Governor Maxine Moul spearheaded efforts to establish a statewide network of community foundations across NE. CVC Board members invited Moul to present and discuss initial steps. CVC adopted its initial Philanthropy initiative in September 2002 by commissioning a county by county wealth transfer study, an inventory of Iowa's nonmetro community foundations and the first Philanthropy Academy in 2004. This is particularly an important issue for nonmetro areas because of the higher proportion of seniors in the population indicating that a greater share of the wealth will transfer in rural counties during the next two decades. CVC eventually supported the Iowa Council of Foundation's Endow Iowa proposal for matching grants and tax credits in the 2003 General Assembly and the County Endowment proposal incorporated in the gambling legislation. CVC has focused on helping to create the 85 affiliate organizations under the legislation and keeping local leaders abreast of philanthropy rules, legislation, best practices, etc., The Proposal on the agenda today is to set up a philanthropy website or at least platform or framework.

IDED manages tax credits and contracts with the Iowa Council on Foundations to administer the matching grants program, etc.

The Iowa Council of Foundations is a newly organized statewide group that includes corporate foundations, private foundations, and community foundations primarily from metro areas. The are working to build membership from nonmetro areas. The have been selected as the lead philanthropic entity for assisting IDED in implementing the Endow Iowa legislation and county endowment funds.

Edelman indicated that out of the $250K received last year, $50K was allocated to philanthropy. Typically all budget and project decisions are made in January, however, this year, so many of the details regarding the type of technical assistance needed was up in the are that CVC Board has postponed the specific details regarding the delivery of the technical assistance project pending opportunities for coordination with the Iowa Council of Foundations.

New Business

Today's Web Tools Proposal -- Lavender Sheet Based on Evaluations from Academy Participants and additional surveys.

Yellow Sheet, letter from Iowa Council of Foundations President Steve Schaaf,

Blue sheet--summary of 101 Workshop in October ($3,000 from CVC) evaluations, buff sheet is a trial balloon for consideration of next year's funding.

Philanthropy Web Tools proposal for discussion. CMS technology allows individual foundations to manage their own information as specified, however, other parts of the website are controlled by parent foundations. The proposal would establish a task force to develop a prototype website for the purposes of enhancement of philanthropy in Iowa. Proposal outlines features, probable outcomes, CVC would fund the development phase of the Task Force. After initial development, annual hosting fee (20-25$/month) to cover hosting costs.

An extended discussion regarding control of content and nature of CVC project proposal ensued. Morain asked how is content developed? Edelman said that the task force would identify the content needs, identify areas for statewide database control and areas for local database control. The intent is to have a link to allow out of state donors to donate online to a home county or town.

Morain because extension has a network of people already trained on this system, they could perhaps be of some assistance to local foundation entities. Edelman indicated that this is true but each county extension group has their own board, and their involvement may vary by county.

Hamilton - Rand, you saw this demonstrated recently…Fisher said he went to Ames with healthy skepticism, this is not a big website, it is an operating platform, various different groups use a common platform, and it makes it easier for the user and the data input-er. Was very impressed, found it to be economical and time saving. He ran it by their affiliates (25-30) and asked what they thought, 31 counties were enthusiastic about it.

Morain - Schaaf, let me ask you, do you have questions or comments from the IACOF about this? Schaaf said the big thing that was promised was to provide you with some sense of where the Iowa Council is headed, and in doing that, we felt an enhanced web presence was needed. Our goal is to develop a web presence. Best thing I can say IACOF does plan to proceed, and if CVC proceeds, we hope the two will interface.

Edelman - the intent is to provide the ability to interface and enough flexible so that local entities could experiment and move to whichever platform meets the local needs.

Fisher not only thinks it is important as whole, but important it offers flexibility to parent foundation and affiliates. Important interface to the degree they want to, to have affiliates linked to this, but wouldn't be confiscated if they didn't want it, but could pull up any affiliate and see the same information.

Rick - new board members present, any questions or comments?

Dal - could those counties affiliated in different qualified foundations use it?

Mark - the design hasn't been confirmed yet, but it would have flexibility to be basic for those who want it to be basic and to be more involved for those who prefer a higher level of sophistication. It will be likely that host community foundations and their affiliates may consider participation in blocks.

Heidt - have you decided who can be on this website? Anyone who has a foundation of any kind? Churches, etc? Who says no? Who makes decisions locally on who gets on the website links?

Edelman - local county foundation affiliate would likely be in charge of that decision.

Hamilton - local affiliate has to be the gatekeeper. To the extent you can help market their efforts, that is where the funding opportunities should be directed.

Schaaf - others have expertise in ICOF who would be interested in helping with part of the process in development.

Van Milligen - I have a concern, if this is to develop a statewide web presence, isn't there a lot of duplication here? Are we spending funds needlessly? How does this proposal differ from ours(ICOF)?

Heidt - sounds to me that the platform being proposed it is broader than ICOF, it would include other things beyond foundations.

Hertel - a very important benefit is to have trained people in each county that will have the ability to put information up very quickly. If local folks want to put something up, with the platform up, they can put it up immediately. There is 100 trained local folks for the CVC proposal. We are not sure how the alternative will work at this point.

Hamilton - maybe we need to get together and discuss further, but this budget item was decided last January, and we need to approve the funds now, if we want to grow the two projects together and interface the synergies of the two groups, at least the funds are obligated to move forward. The Project could be independent of who is on the design committee.

Rick - Schaaf, does that sound workable to you?

Schaaf - yes, I think it goes a long ways in addressing my interests and Nancy's concerns. Gives us an opportunity to all work together and broaden our partnerships and who would bring appropriate expertise and interest and avoid duplicity of effort.

Morain - other comments or questions? Ehrig - from viewpoint of IDED - 1. We aren't about anything divisive, and it's been a good thing so far, and working it through and making sure the purpose is clear stated and who is the customer, making sure the purpose is clearly defined along with who is ultimately in control. Let's avoid duplicity.

Schaaf - we are working towards a staff person, but not hired at this time.

Van Milligen suggested the proposal partnership should be between ICOF and CVC
Fisher indicated concern about taking names out, but would be willing add names of others who want to be involved.

Bauman - prefers not taking names out of the proposal, but alright to add names of partners.

Hamilton - if we add any other appropriate names as needed and get it moved quickly?

Curt - as long as we don't exclude anyone, I think it's okay. Philosophically, locally, if the only ability to give is through a foundation, but I prefer to go another route, I would want to be able to do that.

Hamilton moved to accept proposal as written with addition of Council of Foundations as a listed participant and with understanding that any others with interest may become participants in the project. Riesinger seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

Motion to Adjourn by Heidt, seconded by Ehrig. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned.