Section 2 of the SPEF bylaws states that:" The Corporation shall seek gifts, contributions, donations and bequests ("gifts") for the purposes of the Corporation, and all assets received shall be dedicated to and invested solely for such purposes. The Corporation may accept unrestricted gifts, whose principal and/or income may be used for the Corporation’s purposes in the discretion of the Board of Directors." ]
We got a live one folks! We actually found an issue that polarized the usual lock-step, unanimous voting school board.
On the agenda for "Action" at the October 13, 2008 school board meeting was the 'Naming Rights' committee recommendation to make changes to policy KH (Public Gifts, Donations, and Grants to the School) and Procedure KH-R. It will be up for discussion...and a vote...this coming Monday, October 27.
So...what's the big hairy deal? Why would the SPEF ask for 50%? It's ludicrous, right? And the school board members of the "Naming Rights" subcommittee (McCourt, Shimek, and Whalen) all say that THEY didn't name the 50% figure. OK. So where did it come from? Another one of those Engaged & Enraged Community Members offered a very plausible explanation: perhaps the dealio is that the SPEF has already identified a major donor, and the donor is insisting that 50% of their donation go to the SPEF. THAT would fit not only the standard school board/district way of doing business, but easily explains why the 50% was "tossed" out there in the draft policy. Thanks for the valuable insight, Engaged & Enraged Community Member!
It was clear that Jill Camber-Davidson, Caren Diedrich, and Al Slane were opposed to the proposal in its current form, while it was equally clear that Jim McCourt and John Whalen supported it. Terry Shimek appeared to be on the fence, and David Stackhouse said very little. In the end, President Stackhouse made a motion to table any action until the next school board meeting (Monday 10/27/08). Voting in favor of the motion to table were: Camber-Davidson, Diedrich, Slane, and Stackhouse. Voting against were: McCourt, Shimek, and Whalen.
The elements of these changes are as follows:
- Raise the dollar limit above which any "donation" must be approved by the school board from $3,000 to $25,000.
- Naming rights (improvements/additions funded by referendum) - must be for 1/3 (33%) of the original cost.
- Naming rights (improvements/additions funded by referendum) - Only 50% of the naming rights "donation" goes back to the district (i.e., taxpayers). The other 50% goes to the Sun Prairie Education Foundation.
- Naming rights (future (unplanned) improvements/additions funded by referendum) - must be for 1/3 (33%) of the original cost.
- Naming rights (future (unplanned) improvements/additions NOT funded by referendum) - 100% of the naming rights "donation" goes back to the district (i.e., taxpayers).
- No advertising for alcoholic beverages or tobacco may be accepted or any school purpose.
1. A 50% 'finder's fee' is nuts.
Giving 50% of any funds associated with naming rights to anyone as a 'finder's fee' is simply outrageous. This is not about the SPEF, which we believe is an excellent service organization. Giving 50% of funds donated for naming rights to ANYONE is simply an out-of-touch idea. Board members indicated that SPEF made no demands for any particular percentage, yet discussions ranged from 5% to 98%, and the committee recommended 50%.
How about 5-10%? More importantly...how about a dollar limit for ANY finder's fee. Or perhaps deal with it like an auction: if naming rights costs a donor $1.0M, then perhaps an additional 5-10% would be due the finder (SPEF). Let's say the new high school auditorium costs $3,000,000. That means 'naming rights for the auditorium would have to mean a minimum $1,000,000 donation. At 50%, that means the SPEF gets $$500K and only $500 goes back to the taxpayers who paid for the auditorium. Even at 10% , the finder's fee would be $100K....a VERY sizable infusion of money for the SPEF. The SPEF can do some great things with even $$10-25,000. So why not establish a cap for "finder's fees" at 10% of the donation or $10-25,000, whichever is less? Remember...we're all working for education, right? Paying back the taxpayers for funding the schools to-date, will only improve the likelihood of success of future referenda.
2. Who's in charge here?
While we swallow with difficulty anytime the school board votes on an issue with any significance, the school board IS the definitive bursar for school district monies. Allowing ANY finder's fee to go to even an organization such as the SPEF poses problems. What if the board votes to increase the "gift" limit to $25,000 and then the SPEF makes a donation in the form of a grant for a program or activity which is questioned within the community.
How does the language work if a "number" of grants just under the $25,000 mark are made? What if the SPEF obtains $200,000 as finder fees and issues grants of $20,000 to each of the 10 district schools for their use? Would that count as a single $200,000 grant requiring board approval? or 10 separate grants each of which falls under the board approval limit?
We can't have TWO separate entities responsible for education funding.
3. Open Records?
Will all the SPEF records be subject to the same open records laws as school district records? Presumably, naming rights donations are made to offset taxpayer cost of building additions/improvements. So...what if the taxpayers want to obtain a full accounting of how SPEF funds accumulated through Naming Rights donations? Will SPEF financial records be readily available for Joe the Public to inspect? We think not. Stranger things have happened. Remember what AIG executives with a significant portion of the recent bailout monies?
4. Ensure that any donations mesh with the District's wellness mission.
The language in the draft policy and procedure needs hardening.
5. Why does the SPEF want a 'finders fee', when according to their bylaws, their mission is to seek gifts, contributions, donations and bequests ("gifts") "?
Is this really the way it's supposed to work? If it's the mission of the SPEF to seek these gifts/donations, then why would they be asking for a fee to do what it is they do? Isn't it usually the donor who decides what they want done with their donation? ( e.g., Business X offers $1.0M to go to the theater arts program in exchange for naming the auditorium the "Business X auditorium".
6. The taxpayers paid for these buildings/additions, so any "naming rights" donations should go to repay the taxpayers.
We--the taxpayers-- are shouldering a HUGE debt load. We paid for these buildings with our property taxes. Shouldn't any revenue the district obtains to "name" these buildings/additions therefore be used to pay down the debt and reduce our future property taxes?
Check out the Sun Prairie Education Foundation's website
The mission of the SPEF is:
- Provide funds for enrichment activities
- Encourage excellence through creative teaching
- Support professional growth of teachers
- Provide grants for creative ideas and programs
- Facilitate community/school partnerships
- Promote community awareness of school programs
- Develop enrichment programs to address the needs of Sun Prairie’s community schools and the community it serves
- Provide a vehicle for individuals, businesses and organizations to share resources and gifts with the Sun Prairie school community
Posts
