Board Minutes - August 9, 2007

Minutes submitted by Lisa Mastny

 

 

 

The two invited guests, Tami Graham and Julia Hesse, introduced themselves. Tami explained that she had recently moved to Montezuma County from La Plata County. Julia noted that she is on board of the San Juan Citizens Alliance (SJCA).

 

Tami explained that there has been a lot going on in Montezuma County, but it hasn’t been effectively organized. She said that she and Julia have discussed the possibility of forming a “SASCO-via-Montezuma County” group. She noted that she had just spoken to Denise before the board meeting about what the structure/model is in Archuleta County.

 

Tami explained that a Climate Change Steering Committee is coming together in Montezuma County. She said that JoDee Powers and Penny Welch had organized the recent World Café on Climate Change in Cortez, and there were 55 people in attendance. She said they have been able to come up with a list of areas that people want to get engaged in. She said that she and others are “geared up” and want to do some public policy/public education work in the county (including movies, speakers, etc), but that nothing is officially organized yet.

 

Tami noted that the SJCA convened a recent environmental roundtable in Montezuma County. She said it was clear that there were lots of groups doing different things, but no effective coordination of events or e-mail lists. She said a few groups had participated in a 3–4 hour meeting a few months ago, and agreed to cooperate on a Google events calendar so groups can coordinate events. She said the meeting was a networking, ideas, and resource sharing meeting, and that nothing like it had ever happened in Montezuma County before. She added that many people are involved in lots of issues, including air quality and a Montezuma vision project. She said the local Green party is also the most active in the entire state of Colorado. Jim added that a lot has been happening with local food in the county as well, and that Rosie Carter is the big player.

 

Julia noted that the Cortez Chamber of Commerce is also convening a green subcommittee. She explained that despite being very busy, Tami is committed to doing what it takes to get something like SASCO started in Montezuma County.

 

Tami noted that the climate change steering committee came out of the recent climate forum and would be meeting on August 10. She said it might be a great opportunity to rally work on some key public policy and education issues. She said the questions in her mind are: what would be the relationship of a new group with local groups and with SASCO. She said a new group could possibly get its own members, or go through SASCO. She said she would like to be able to hand out some of the materials SASCO has, maybe by printing special versions that say “SASCO—Montezuma County. She explained that the county “doesn’t want Durango telling them what to do.”

 

Tami said she likes the idea of an SOS-type series, featuring a movie, speaker, and action on a topic three months in a row. She said that maybe the approach should be to let JoDee run with the public policy angle, and then she (Tami) would do outreach events. She noted that, “you have to be careful about people’s time.” She said she feels committed to this, however, and that “the time is really ripe over in Montezuma County.”

 

Rebecca noted that in SASCO’s ongoing discussions with SWCRES, there has been an effort to flesh out different types of affiliates, including the possibility of becoming a subcommittee of SASCO. Dick agreed that it seems like there are good opportunities. He noted that SASCO is incorporated and has a fiscal-agency agreement that enables us to accept tax-qualified contributions. He said that in the case of SWCRES, they have an existing treasury, which SASCO has agreed they can bring and maintain separately; in the future, they would also have the ability to earmark funds. He explained that on the membership form, people would be able to identify whether they want their dues to go to the energy committee, or otherwise.

 

Dick noted that in general, based on recent meetings with SWCRES, all of these issues, including monies and lists, appear to be manageable without a lot of overhead for the SASCO Treasurer and Secretary. He explained that, in return, SASCO would get an energy voice on the board. He noted that the idea is that there would be a stakeholder seat on the SASCO board chosen by what would essentially become the energy committee—in a similar way to how the Farm-to-School Committee or SOS currently operates. He said this raises issues of how much we want the board to grow. He observed that for semi-autonomous groups like “SASC-azuma,” we could formulate some sort of institutional agreement that these groups would not be allowed to operate in such a way that would jeopardize SASCO’s nonprofit status.

 

Tim noted that the one thing the groups wouldn’t be able to do is promote a specific political candidate. Dick added that this type of support, however, can be given for referenda and for private boards like LPEA. But he said there are limitations, so the goal should be to come up with an arrangement that is as flexible and administratively simple as possible.

 

Denise noted that SOS had similar issues—the group had money, and they weren’t sure what would happen to it if they affiliated with SASCO. She said that currently, expenses are manageable, so SOS hasn’t chosen to enter into an official interagency agreement for funding. But she noted that is always an option for the future, so any group interested in affiliating could choose to go either way. She said the advantage of this association is SOS’s ability to take advantage of the community’s energy right now, while people are fired up. She noted that a huge reason SOS came into the SASCO fold is because the group doesn’t have to “mess around with nonprofit status and paperwork.” She noted, for example, that SOS is close to getting Pagosa Springs to cooperate with La Plata County on the regional greenhouse gas inventory to meet the requirements of the Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement.

 

Dick noted that if Montezuma County takes a similar approach, they might be able to fold in to SASCO as well. He said that, organizationally, SASCO as a board still has to figure out the nuts and bolts of such an arrangement. He noted that one of the overall goals of SASCO is to facilitate activities around Southwest Colorado. But he also added that such broader activity will likely drive SASCO to the point where we need to raise enough money to have staff to really run the organization.

 

Julia asked how SASCO is currently raising money—is the group soliciting grants? Dick replied that we haven’t really had this discussion yet. He noted that having watched the demise of Operation Healthy Communities, he is wary of the idea of living from grant to grant. But he said it wasn’t clear yet how to set up a viable funding arrangement. He said SASCO could go to local governments for support, but then this raises issues of advocacy and independence. He said there is also the pending issue of forming an Independent Business Alliance (IBA), and what role we would play in that—i.e., could it be a source of funding for the larger organization? He said SASCO could also have a major fundraiser, or look for local “angels.” He commented that all of this is “on the table and totally undecided.”

 

Rebecca said she sees the Montezuma County goal as furthering the goals of SASCO. She noted that if that group organized and got more members, then this could help SASCO overall financially. She said we will just have to find out what works best. She noted that the only risk she sees is that managing a larger organization could get to be a lot more work, which would be problematic without the money to do it. But she noted that if we had more members, there is the potential for this to be financially useful.

 

Denise noted that SOS has a “begging basket” they pass around at all meetings to ask for donations. She said the group also has a membership fee of $10 a year, for which members get a free tote bag, and that they also hold an annual fundraising drive in the fall. She noted that “there are people out there (angels) who so believe in the cause, they give money.” She observed that SASCO and others are “going to need those funds.”

 

Dick asked Tami and Julia whether an affiliation with SASCO sounds like something that would work. He agreed that the SOS relationship provides a model that would “begin to give some shape to things.” Tami said that having handouts, etc, would go a long way toward making the Montezuma group look and feel organized. She noted that Matt Kefauver in Cortez is doing a huge local buying push. She explained that the main goals of such an umbrella group should be communications, networking, sharing events, and getting education out during elections. She said it is important to start small and reasonable and not to take things too fast.

 

Rebecca asked whether Tami has any preference of wanting to be a SASCO committee versus an affiliate. Tami responded that she doesn’t have a preference either way, and that she would be happy with whatever SASCO prefers. She said she liked the idea of being an affiliate, however. Dick sad that we should do whatever works best, noting that “the goal is to meet our goals.”

 

Tami and Julia thanked SASCO for the invitation and left the meeting.

 

Jim brought up the SASCO website and noted that all outstanding web issues have been addressed. He said Robin has been re-doing the whole Fort Lewis College website, which has been taking up her time. He noted that she is willing to keep things up with the SASCO site, but that it would be good if SASCO could start finding someone else, or even start paying someone. Tim noted that Creative Links Multimedia, and the owner Sheri Amass, used to provide some service to nonprofits as part of her community service. Julie observed that at a recent “buy local” meeting, Bob Kunkel had printed out some pages from the SASCO website, indicating that people are using it.

 

 

Dick opened the discussion by noting that the “buy local” topic brings up lots of different issues. He said a leading question is how SASCO (and others) should go about the promotion of independent local businesses, in the context of the other, city-sponsored, campaign currently under consideration. He asked how a SASCO “buy local” effort would affect the organization’s structure and ability to accept local funds. He said it would be good to discuss where we stand with the campaign, and with the formation of a BALLE-type group.

 

Marcus handed out summary notes from a recent meeting with the city. He said the goal is not to push SASCO into something it doesn’t want to or can’t do—the goal is to do things that would strengthen the organization. He noted that he “gets excited by possibilities.” He said he sees a significant difference between a short-term ad campaign for buying local (posters, radio ads), as has been proposed by the city, versus sustaining such an effort over the long term. He said he is not sure the city is necessarily thinking long term—i.e., considering the creation of a structure or organization to support this campaign. He noted that other communities have formed IBAs, or BALLE-type groups. He added that at the recent meeting with the City, Bob Kunkel had made the comment that if we had $100,000, we could give XX,000 to an ad agency to run the campaign, use $30,000 for a coupon book, and maybe pay a person to organize it for a while. Marcus said that meanwhile, the non-city folks at the table were thinking just the opposite—i.e., that the bulk of the money should go toward funding a person to sustain this effort over the longer term.

 

Marcus raised the question of “who to include” in such an effort—would it include chain stores, independent businesses, franchises? He said he liked Tim’s approach of framing buying local as a “return on investment” (ROI). Marcus said the main purpose of such a campaign should be to educate people about the ROI from buying local, and that anything else would diminish the value of this. He noted that there might be different ways to frame messages, to separate a city versus a local business-led effort. For instance, he said, one way to steer the city or county away from directly using the terms “buy local” would be to encourage them to instead use phrases such as “La Plata Loyalty,” or “Keep It in the County.”

 

Marcus explained that Wal-Mart, as a chain store, shouldn’t be included in a “buy local” campaign, and that the main goal should be to have “buy local” mean supporting local, independent businesses. He noted that if you could get everyone to agree to that, and to frame different messages accordingly, then that could do a lot. But he said he’s not sure everyone’s on board yet. He noted that the argument of other communities is that supporting local, independent businesses helps everybody—it’s not exclusive. He said that in Fort Collins, the Chamber of Commerce had pushed back because they felt such an approach was discriminating against their members. In Boulder, in contrast, the community hammered away at the idea that this will help everybody—and finally won the day. Jim noted that this calls for having a clear baseline for defining “local.”

 

Marcus said he had received a message from Peter Schertz from Maria’s Bookshop and felt positive about the last meeting. He said he and others would love to have SASCO’s involvement in this initiative. He noted that Peter took the lead in the local America Unchained efforts of last year. Marcus also noted that he had been discussing with Lisa the idea of combining a SASCO resource guide with a coupon book. He said he had talked to Gail Marie Kimmell, who did the Fort Collins “Be Local” coupon book, and she had expressed her regret at having been unable to “marry” their green guide and coupon book (someone else had already taken on the resource guide idea before she started the coupon book).

 

Marcus noted that one model for moving forward would be to recruit members to form an IBA, to do a “buy-local” campaign, and then to do a coupon book. But he noted that Fort Collins actually did the coupon book first, and used that to attract members because it was something concrete to show for the effort. But he noted that pursuing a book requires a certain degree of funding and staff. He explained that in Fort Collins, the coupon book has in fact been a revenue-generating endeavor—both from selling ad space and selling the book itself. He said they paid for the printing through sales of space for the coupons. Rebecca noted that a friend of hers, Doc Roberts in Bayfield, had mentioned that he wants to start a business of a local green coupon book. Lisa said she would follow up. Marcus noted that all of these conversations are really exciting—“they’re all under the radar, but it’s happening.”

 

Tim brought up a correction to Marcus’s memo, pointing out that the City does not in fact provide funds to the Downtown Business Improvement District (BID). Rather, he noted, the BID raises funds from taxes—it’s classified as a “special district.” He said the City Council appoints BID board members.

 

Jim said one of the concerns he had from the recent “buy local” meeting was that while it is clear how easily money can flow, it could also end up going to the wrong efforts. He noted that Jack Llewelyn and Bob Kunkel are ready to pass this effort on to LEAD, but that this could end up being a counterproductive campaign. He said it sounds like forming an IBA is the real core approach to making things work—i.e., it’s clear cut, and you could even convince farmers that they’re independent businesses too.

 

Julie said she was concerned about the view that the city-led process could be “counterproductive.” She noted that it makes sense to work with that effort, to meet with Bob Kunkel, and to maybe discuss the idea of “phasing.” She said one option would be to take $30,000, hire a manager, and list the deliverables—which could include a coupon book, etc. She agreed that there is a difference between a marketing campaign that focuses on sales tax and an approach that has an emphasis on independent business, but that there’s no reason these efforts couldn’t be complementary—“it’s just a matter of levels.” She said the city could run two kinds of ads: generic ads, and ads just for independent businesses. She said the discussion would then be about how much funding goes to what. She added that some portion of the funds (say $10–15 K) could even be allocated to do the local multiplier effect study, to enable it to be done well enough to be statistically valid.

 

Julie concluded that it makes sense to partner with the city effort, and that it would be important that an IBA be part of this larger movement. She said it may be jumping the gun to say we want a staff person, and that it may be better to have some deliverables to show value, then to indicate to the city/county what we could do if we had more funding.

Jim said he agreed that it may not be counterproductive to have both approaches, but that it would certainly be counterproductive to confuse the term “buy local” with a watered-down approach. Julie said she agreed, and also agreed with idea that this shouldn’t just be a marketing campaign, but a larger project. But she said the way the RFP is written and administered would be very different depending on the approach taken. She also said it is not necessarily inappropriate for the Chamber or City or LEAD to support one kind of business over another. She said the mission of LEAD is to support local businesses that add value to the community.

 

Marcus suggested that SASCO talk to folks at BALLE and in Fort Collins about these issues. He noted that Gail Marie Kimmel had the sense that “ Durango is trying to co-opt ‘buy local.’” He agreed that we need to figure out how to work with the Chamber more, and that maybe there is an opportunity to work together in a way that furthers the goals of the Chamber but also creates institutional change there as well. He asked wondered whether it might be possible to get everyone to agree that local business means local, independent business. Jim said one way to achieve this understanding is to come up with some alternative terminology, so people can distinguish between the two.

 

Julie reiterated that there is a value to having both campaigns (sales tax and IBA) under the same umbrella. She said it lends credibility if the IBA is recognized as being part of a larger institution. Dick noted that while there is a risk of going down parallel paths, there is also a risk of marginalization. He said there is a fine line, and if the goal is to build community, then we need to make an effort to get the “buy local” effort under one roof. Julie said there is in fact an opportunity to help drive the process—we have elected officials who are supportive of the independent business side of things. She said there may be a way that we can make it so we are driving the process. She said there is also a value in tapping into city staff time and other resources.

 

Leah said that while she likes how this all sounds, she wonders how it would work logistically. For example, if there were a “buy-local” ad, the goal should be to direct someone to an organization, an IBA—but this probably wouldn’t be allowed on city ads. Also, she asked, would this then mean that Wal-Mart could put their coupon in a coupon book? Julie brought up the idea that other (non-local) businesses—such as City Market—could put in ads in the “Be Local,” book, saying they support the concept. She suggested that there could be a general logo, but then two coexisting products within that.

 

Tim noted that at the first city/community “buy local” meeting, there was greater recognition that this will be a long-term process—and even Bob Ledger supported it. Tim said there was talk about not just doing an ad campaign, but also a longer-term, sustained multimedia campaign. But he said that at more recent meetings, Bob Kunkel seems to be more into the ad campaign side of things. Tim agreed that it would be very dangerous to confuse the term “buy local” with a watered-down ad campaign—“we don’t want this to be misused.” He thanked Marcus for his efforts and noted that, “we want to keep you in the process.” 

 

Tim said he thinks we should just go ahead and create an IBA—and if SASCO wants to be the sponsor and fiscal agent, that would be great. He said that if the funds come from the city, then that would be fine, but if not, they can be gotten elsewhere. He said he would hope that such a group could eventually be on its own—that SASCO would just incubate the process. He noted that having a product like a coupon book would be ideal. He explained that every fall, FLC students show up at his store saying: “my project for my business class is to do a local coupon book.” But it never gets done. So he said there is a possibility to tap some resources at the college and elsewhere.

 

Tim noted that there are 2­–3 coupon agencies in the community already, and they make a business out of it—it is a tried and true business model. He said we would need to get funding, and then take the idea to somebody who’s willing to do the work. He noted that such a product becomes an ongoing funding source, and that salespeople make money by selling ad space. He said we would need to find someone who is willing to knock on doors and work on commission. He agreed that “people want to see a product,” and that this could perhaps provide a payback to SASCO over time. So, he concluded, we should “just go with it—gather the Peters and others to get it going.” At the same time, he said, we should work to influence the city on their campaign—and tell them they can’t use the term “Buy Local.”

 

Julie said she agrees in theory, but that the city already has resources waiting to go into a campaign. Tim replied that no, they don’t. He said the campaign would still need City Council approval, LEAD approval, and Chamber approval. He noted that if we say it’s not a good idea, then these groups probably wouldn’t fund it—i.e., we have a lot of leverage. Julie said that we have to be careful not to distance ourselves from them either, though. Tim agreed and said he felt that they were open to ideas. He said it’s important to remember that the reason the first “buy local” meeting was held at all is because the City Council voted to have Bob do research, come back to them, and tell them what they should do. Tim said he like the idea of possibly doing a green guide as well, noting that “The market will tell you if you’re succeeding or not.”

 

Julie asked what the next steps for SASCO should be. She noted that an IBA needs to be business-driven, but that it also needs some kind of support structure. Tim said that as a business owner, he thinks what is needed is a champion. He said it is important to have a product (like a coupon book), but that you also need someone willing to sell it. He said he doesn’t see a business owner taking this on directly. Julie asked whether it makes sense to look to the city, and to LEAD, for sources of funding—i.e., can we ask for money to hire a project manager? Marcus said we could try that, but that it is also good to get a diversified base of funding. He explained that in Fort Collins, when the city government turned Gail Marie down, this gave her more freedom. She ended up getting Blue Sun Biodiesel, New Belgium Brewing, and a handful of other investors on board, and had greater independence—they didn’t have to clear the text with anyone. Leah said it probably wouldn’t be hard to raise the money here.

 

Marcus observed that it may be a healthier process if we have a product first. He noted that the upcoming “Renaissance of Local” conference on September 27in Boulder will include a BALLE leadership training on how to form a “buy local” campaign. He said it would be better if we paid to join the BALLE network first, but that that could also be a next step. He said he could check with Gail Marie to see how much they charged for selling coupon space. He added that there are forms and a fee ($500?) for becoming a BALLE member.

 

Rebecca asked why it would make sense for us to join, since we’re not a business. Leah explained that the way it typically works is to have a nonprofit administer the group, and have members. Jim asked what the obligations of being a BALLE member are. Marcus said we would need to find out the details. Julie said that for $650 plus a web set-up fee, you get access to the members-only part of BALLE website—this includes consultation, program development, funding strategies, access to conferences, promo material, newsletters, etc. She said you also get the manual for how to do a “buy local” campaign. She said the annual fee is then $500 a year, and that there are other fees that are optional.

 

Julie asked whether it would be possible to start a group ourselves first, then maybe join BALLE later. Leah noted that a group has been meeting in Durango for two years, and that interest is waning because there have been too many meetings and not enough action. She said businesses are sold on the idea, and that it just needs to be done.

 

Rebecca asked whether there are in fact two parallel tracks going on—an interest in forming a local group in Durango, and parallel interest on the part of BALLE to have us join their fold. Marcus noted that there are many different pieces to this, but that the overall idea was to bring BALLE into our local conversation. Leah explained that the local discussion had in fact started with the idea of joining AMIBA (a group similar to BALLE), and they were initially following this model, with the view that BALLE was too complicated. But when they found out that other organizations, like SASCO, were interested in a “buy-local” campaign as well, and were particularly interested in the sustainability angle, which BALLE is more supportive of, then they agreed that this direction probably made more sense. Marcus noted that we don’t need to form a network yet—but we do need to find funding to support a champion.

 

Dick said that he sees SASCO’s SLED Committee as an important player, but asked whether we are in fact prepared to manage money as an organization, or to pursue a contract with the city. He raised the question of whether this could possibly compromise our advocacy role. He also asked how much overhead we would need, especially if we wanted to have the ability to pay someone to oversee this effort. He noted that the Community Foundation does not do payroll.

 

Julie recommended that the board defer this issue to the SLED Committee, and have them come back to the board with a recommendation. Jim noted that while he doesn’t want to be hesitant about SASCO getting involved, this does raise a significant administration issue. Rebecca noted that we might get something out of going to the conference in Boulder. Dick said his personal dream would be that the IBA gets up and running and becomes an affiliate of SASCO. He said that the goal is ultimately to find what works best. Marcus observed that in other cities, there are efforts to link IBAs to sustainability groups.

 

 

Dick summarized the recent discussions with SWCRES and noted that the immediate issue is how we should respond to their proposed approach. He said the idea was brought up of them having a stakeholder member on our board. He noted that SWCRES still has to approach CRES to get its reaction to the dis-affiliation, to find out if they can still use the name, keep the membership money, etc. He noted that Tom had suggested that SASCO move to the model of having SASCO committees be more active, while having less-frequent board meetings.

 

Julie said the SWCRES affiliation makes perfect sense from our perspective. She said we should draw up a list of what we can offer them, get their response, and sign an MOU. Dick replied that we’ve essentially already done that.

 

Jim said the only major concern he has is with SWCRES automatically having a slot on the SASCO board. He noted that there aren’t slots for other “issue areas, such as health care. He asked how this would affect board composition and said he finds the idea of “slots” to be problematic. Roy said he supports the idea that if SWCRES wants to be part of SASCO, then they would just be another committee. Denise disagreed and said that since energy is such an important issue, it would be a “no brainer” to offer them a slot on the board—i.e., it would be “good and logical” for them to have representation. Jim asked what would then happen if another energy group came to prominence in the area—why would we specifically reserve the slot for SWCRES? Denise asked whether the SASCO bylaws need to be static. Dick said no, we can change them.

 

Julie said it wasn’t clear to her where the disagreement lies. She said our purpose is to serve as an umbrella—and we have certain areas of interest that fall under our board. She noted that any organization that comes under the umbrella becomes part of our membership body. They can then elect our board based on member votes. Roy said the distinction is that the current board is here for the benefit of the collective organization, and all the collective interests it supports. He said we are not here to further any specific cause—therefore, seating a board member as a representative of a specific interest is problematic.

 

Denise asked to make a point of clarification. She said she was not advocating that every group that joins SASCO have a seat on the board, but that since energy is so important, this should be an exception. Roy said that such an approach speaks to the point Tim had made about possibly compromising SASCO’s ability to be an advocate. Denise replied that having the seat would make us more of an advocate for energy issues. Rebecca suggested that come January, when the expired board seats come up for renewal, that SWCRES nominate someone to become a board member.

 

Julie observed that perhaps there is confusion about the distinction between a subcommittee and a member organization. Jim asked whether the slot under contention is for an issue area, or for an organization. He asked whether there is a distinction between a geographic entity and an issue area. Dick said he sees a distinction between an affiliate and a committee—in this case, the idea would be that people would become members of SASCO, but choose to commit/earmark resources for SWCRES. He said they would not be an affiliate organization.

 

Julie suggested that we should specify the categories for committees, affiliates, etc, in our bylaws. Denise noted that you don’t need to add something into the bylaws every time there’s a new committee. She said that SOS is an organizational affiliate, not a committee.

 

Dick noted that in the SASCO elections, there will be seats that need to be filled. He said we may wind up having an election with a number of candidates. He suggested that we should invite SWCRES representatives to stand for election to be both a board member and the leader of the energy committee. In this way, we wouldn’t automatically give them a seat, but would invite them to become involved via the typical board election process. Jim said we need to make a distinction between someone being a board member and being the liaison to the energy committee. He suggested that Dick play this liaison role, at least until the election occurs. He added that we should let SWCRES know that the way they can get a member on the board is by going through the standard election process. That way it can be done by a vote of SASCO members.

 

Dick noted that the board members up for election are Erick, Rebecca, Roy, and Denise. He agreed that the more we talk about it, the more it makes sense to use invitations to the board as the way to move ahead. Julie asked whether we need to write an MOU laying out the terms of affiliation. Dick replied that this will need to be done, but not immediately. He said we first need to convey to SWCRES that it’s important to maintain our elected board structure, and that we expect energy members to always be elected. In the meantime, Dick said he would continue to serve as the liaison to the energy committee, as he essentially already has.

 

Julie proposed that the board make a motion to create an energy committee in anticipation of SWCRES merging their functions into SASCO and dissolving, and that the board create a liaison to that committee. All 7 board members present were in favor.

 

Denise suggested that the board start a dialogue about what formal agreements of affiliation would look like. She noted that SOS would like to formally affiliate at some point, and to pay for this status. She encouraged SASCO to consider the fact that different groups will have different levels of funds, and suggested that SASCO perhaps make its fee structure contingent on a group’s ability to pay. Dick raised the idea of doing a financial accounting of the time commitment required of both the Treasurer and Secretary, in order to have a rational basis for assessing how we would charge official affiliates.

 

Dick thanked the remaining board members for holding out for the late meeting and dealing with “big issues.” He added, in summary, that the sustainability proposal was currently hung up in city and county staff discussions about who would pay for what. He said he had received an e-mail from Erick saying there are more discussions going on than we know. Dick said that overall, his sense is that decision-makers are willing to go ahead with the proposal, but that they first need to get their paperwork, budgets, etc in order. He said the proposal has gone to the city but that the county role is still under discussion.