Cayuga Lake Watershed Network
Doc. #2008-16
Outreach Committee Meeting, Patterson Farm
March 2, 2008

Present: Julie Patterson, Roxy Johnston, Judy Pipher, John Mawdsley

Agenda: To discuss Lakefest Plans; to discuss reorganization of the Network Committees and Update on Decade 2 Planning

Lakefest
Our concept for a simpler Lakefest was explained to John. We are re-working the event to use more volunteer hours and donations to address cost issues and use of staff time. We’re planning to raffle door prizes and use a silent auction format for bigger ticket donations. This should make the event flow smoother and raise some money to offset costs. It’s time to start contacting organizations for displays, activities, and soliciting raffle/auction donations. The OC feels the Annual meeting shouldn’t happen in the middle of the event.

The Lakefest ad is due tomorrow for the Finger Lakes Vacation Guide Roxy provided information on EnviroScape to be included. Judy will check with Cindy Peterson, owner of Goose Watch Winery concerning use of their logo in the ad. Judy Morehouse will be contacted for other publicity.

Julie will ask Niamh if Wells College will offer money for food, as they have for previous Lakefest events after checking with Sharon to see if this conflicts with Wells offer to house the Network for free for 3-5 years.

Goosewatch is excited about the local arts and produce. The winery is beautiful and they have a dock. We will ask if they would consider some tie-in with a tasting. RJ will contact produce suppliers

John feels that the Purpose of Lakefest should be clarified.

Outreach concerns: We were asked to raise money to support Lakefest but not given clear direction about whether or not we could pursue that goal entirely on our own. We may need to check with other committees or the office. It is unclear what the Board expects of the committee and we are requesting clarification. John indicated that there is a Development Committee that will pursue funding sources for whole events so we should defer to them. With regards to smaller donations from grocery stores or raffle prizes we are free to move ahead. John indicated that funding comes in two forms, the form we use is in the shortest supply right now (more on that below). Julie will approach her Dairy coop for some operating funds for Lakefest – though again, not total sponsorship.

Committee Restructuring and Decade 2 Planning:
Network activities are funded through unrestricted funds or grant sources. Many outreach activities use unrestricted funds. This source of funding is currently low. We need to prioritize our activities with this funding issue in mind.

John hopes the budget will improve significantly. A proposal has been submitted to a local foundation and the Well’s contribution of ‘housing’ will be used to solicit other donors. Judy looked at the Annenburg and Doris Duke foundations online.

The Board and the Decade 2 group have proposed committee changes:
(1) Separate finance and development;
Finance will do budgets and manage grants
Development will merge with Membership to raise unrestricted funds from companies and private donors. Development has some advisors who do this work professionally. Kevin Zippel is the chair of this committee.

2) Create the Program committee to annually define a plan of work, themes, timelines, assist with running programs, evaluate success of programs. The OC is seen as the closest match to this proposed committee. The past method of prioritizing issues/topics hasn’t worked well as the Board, Staff and Committees largely follow their own initiatives.

The OC members currently perform the second half of Program description (run and evaluate programs). Roxy was concerned that we would be taking on work previously done by the office with regards to coordinated newsletter themes, work of other committees and overseeing other volunteers. She recognized that the office is overworked. The concern is that this kind of organizational oversight probably needs to be done by individuals who are more broadly involved with the Network, such as staff or Board members. The whole OC felt that setting Network priorities was not a good fit for us. Roxy also suggested that a two year return interval would be better for setting priorities/themes.

All OC members agreed that the Network should be reorganized, however, this proposed committee structure seems to require more broad-based awareness of Network activities by all committee members. It sounds onerous to us. We’d be happy to continue running, or helping to run programs.

John asked the OC members if the work would be reasonable if 2-3 more board members were on the committee, and if those members were charged with the broader responsibilities. We said yes.

John also asked if we would work with the Issues committee on their programs. The Issues committee wants to perpetuate the Spring and Fall conference (south and north ends of the lake respectively) format. We said yes. OC members suggested direct lines of communication between the Issues/OC to facilitate this – again preferring it be a Board member.
All applaud John’s efforts and want this discussion to continue.

The Decade 2 group is also looking at ways to attract more funds: Should the mission statement be changed, should the name be changed, how will the administrative? structure change? It is suggested that the Network should take on more advocacy roles in the future. The Issues committee will work with the Board to develop unified positions. Any positions will be based on science. A new mission statement would reflect some of this advocacy – ‘identify key threats, advocate for sustainable solutions’. For branding/marketing, a memorable name is better. Some OC members were opposed to a change in name and logo. Perhaps sharing cayugawatershed.org with the IO and then having two areas to go to – municipal and citizen would work for both groups and would help clarify the continual confusion about who the two groups are and what they do.

General Comments:
There has been a lack of communication and responsibility among the Board, Office and Committees. The Board hasn’t had finance or program information so it’s hard for them to prioritize or give guidance. Committee reports are often submitted in writing, with other items getting the majority of the Board’s time at monthly meetings. Committee reports are often not discussed. Roxy thinks this results in a communication gap and contributes to our problems with identity. Personnel issues need to be dealt with in a more positive way than in the past, perhaps through an executive committee. Network (Board and Committee). On-line minutes aren’t up-to-date – that’s a turn-off for visitors to the website. Chairs need to supply their minutes in a timely fashion.
Regarding the Board’s input on the photo contest and associated calendar: The Board was not concerned with the photo contest portion. There was a concern that calendars wouldn’t make much money and could end up costing the Network money. The communication problems associated with this proposal should not be repeated as the OC is now up-to-date on financial issues and Board initiatives. Judy described how other groups avoid calendar production costing the organization money.

Action Items:
Post articles from WRC (Water Resource Council) effort to Network webpage.

Roxy shared the WRC’s experience with controversial issues and the sense that outreach/education seems to be the greatest need.

The OC commends John's willingness to assume leadership at such an unsettled time.

Roxy will forward Patricia Haines e-mail to John for consideration by the development committee.

Next telecon: Tomorrow afternoon 2pm