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.