University of Minnesota, Morris
March 21, 2005
Members Present: Sara Haugen, Sarah Mattson, Bryan Herrmann, Emily Carr,
Sharon VanEps, LeAnn Dean, Dennis Templeman, Matt Croaston,
Lowell Rasmussen, Maddy Maxeiner, Arne Kildegaard
Guests: Sam Schuman, Fritz Schwaller, Keith Brugger, Peter Wyckoff,
Judy Korn, Alisande Allaben, Carla Riley, Janel Kolden, Laura Thielke
(In these minutes: Presentation from Fund Development)
Sam Schuman said he is very proud of the work and success in our fundraising efforts at UMM. There are certainly areas which can be improved, but he believes our overall record is an excellent one. During our last capital campaign, the University of Minnesota Foundation office assessed our maximum capacity of $2-$2.5M. CRPC nearly tripled that projection and in fact, we raised over $9M. He noted that UMM had raised over $50 million in capital facilities funding during the past decade, all of which, at a private university, would have had to come from philanthropic sources. There are three important points of the fiscal tripod: 1) state support, 2) tuition income, and 3) philanthropy. Since state support is not keeping up with expenses and tuition has risen at excessive rates, philanthropy will be increasingly important. He concluded that he and the development office were pleased to present this report to CRPC as we do periodically.
Maddy Maxeiner began by saying the Capital Campaign was very successful and the three-year period between campaigns is an ideal time to revisit what weıve done and to continue to work on the upward trend of the fundraising program. She added that it takes 3-5 years to develop and undertake fundraising efforts. She suggested going through the entire presentation first and then answer questions. (For a complete copy of the presentation, please contact the Chancellorıs Office or External Relations Office.) She thanked her staff for the work they have achieved this year.
Summary points of the presentation included overviews of Campaign Minnesota, UMM's gift production history, program overview and trends in annual giving dollars and donors, changes in UMM endowment values, and staffing and dollars raised as compared with fellow public liberal arts colleges. The presentation concluded with current fundraising totals, Promise of Tomorrow goals and progress, and factors that will affect future UMM development success.
After the presentation, Peter Wyckoff said that of the 16 questions the Executive Committee forwarded, only 7 were addressed. He hopes CRPC will take this seriously and request the answers to all 16. He remarked the trends in alumni giving have gotten worse and asked what was the cause of the downturn and what would we need to turn that trend around. If our alumni pool has grown, why are we failing to keep up? Maxeiner said she wouldnıt agree that we are failing to keep up. We could do more but are limited because of operational and staff issues. Andy Lopez asked what is the most critical factor. Maxeiner said they need additional staff and noted that the current staff is already stretched too thin. Fritz Schwaller added that the turnover that has occurred in the past few years have not helped long term development. Arne Kildegaard asked how many times alums are contacted. Maxeiner said in the old days there would not be much contact. We are trying to increase our contacts. Carla Riley added that in addition to letters we also do phone-a-thons using the staff at the Foundation. Kildegaard commented that if we rely on the Foundation, we have non-UMM people making the calls. Lopez added that having the Foundation make the calls could cause negative feelings. Allisande Allaben reported that were 14,000 alumni contacts from a database of 18,000. She added that they have trouble holding on to the young alumni because of frequent moves. Carla Riley added that there is a real efficiency by using the Foundation for the phone-a-thon because UMM simply does not have the staff to do it. Maxeiner said it becomes a priority tradeoff because of the need for more staff. Wyckoff commented to Schuman that if we know there is a staff issue, what is his position on this and what is the ideal size. Schuman said that the development office, like every other office on campus, does not have enough staff. The vast majority of offices are woefully understaffed. Regarding the ideal size, Schuman said at a previous college where he worked, they had 11 full time non-support employees in development, we have 2. Our projections show an increase, however, is that adequate? Absolutely not. Wyckoff asked what is UMMıs goal or target for development office staff. Schuman said to get bigger. He is more interested in the trend line than speculating on a particular target number.
Lopez reminded the committee that the next meeting will be March 29 and the agenda item will be the Getty Grant.