Posted in
Sustainability Alliance Board Retreat
Three Springs Board Room
January 9, 2009
Facilitator: Tami Graham
Attending: Jim Dyer, Keith Fox, Heather Gregory, Werner Heiber, Sara Holt, Rebecca Koeppen, Linda Illsley, Kevin Lockrow, Carolyn Moller, Lisa Mastny, Katy Pepinsky, Marcus Renner, Tom Riesing, Denise Rue-Pastin, Dick White
MINUTES
Taking Stock
Marcus observed that while he is proud of what we are doing as an organization, he has been a bit frustrated with how it is getting done. Denise noted that the lack of funding may be making it difficult to pursue projects. She said it would be helpful to have a Treasurer’s report at each meeting. She asked why the website redesign had not happened if it was identified as being a priority; same with the study on the local economic multiplier. Also, she wondered whether there should be a Smart Energy Committee member at each Board meeting.
Lisa explained that for personal reasons, the website didn’t happen. She also said that no one had really picked up the ball in the Marketing Committee. Marcus noted that all the energy for the SLED Committee went into the coupon book. He said there is still interest within LOCAL in doing the multiplier study. Jim added that the main board members who were interested in doing the study are no longer Board members.
Tami observed that the common thread for frustration appears to be limited human resources—that is, that the failed projects relied on specific individuals.
Dick said we need to figure out a mechanism for liaison between the Board and specific committees. He noted that a multiplier study is a big thing to do as volunteers, and expensive to hire outsiders to do. Jim noted that the dysfunction is that we’re not deliberately making decisions that reflect our lack of resources. He said we need to devote more deliberate attention to what is actually happening.
Tami observed that the big question is, “What does the Board need to achieve greater sustainability?” In other words, we need to figure out how to address burnout and to ask ourselves, where is the match between what the community needs, and our ability to meet these needs?
Lisa agreed that we need to identify and target specific needs up front, versus addressing needs as they come up. Rebecca said we appear to be getting distracted by different opportunities that are coming up, and as such we “haven’t been able to complete our family meeting.”
Marcus said he sees two different types of roles within the organization: one is topics and issue-based, the other is functional (communication, networking). Keith observed that we will probably always be doing a little bit of both strategic activities and ad hoc responses to outside events.
Werner noted that as an organization, we have passion for sustainability, and as individuals we have passion for issues. The issue is how to channel the passion of individuals into action by the organization. Linda explained that her passion is food, so she became a member of Jim’s group. She observed that the committee was already so structured that she wasn’t easily able to take anything on. So, she just went to meetings. She had the same experience on the energy team—it was never clear what the specific tasks were.
Marcus said there is so much happening in the food area, that maybe we need to break it into subgroups. He said the missing link is—what’s the passion of all of us coming together as an organization?
Lisa said we need to address delegation issues—the more people we have, the better we can share the work. This allows for contingency planning—committees could allow more space for volunteers, multiple tasks.
Katy said the Board meetings seem like they focus more on reporting, and not enough on networking with other committees on how can work together on sustainability. Marcus said that for him, the incentive to come to meetings is the updates. He said the meetings are not really creative, brainstorming.
Linda said we need to clarify what activities are full, and what are open and need support.
Rebecca said we need to develop a protocol for what we say no to. We need to have clear goals and a mission. Then, we can test if various proposals fit into our mission. Denise said she sees the Board as an umbrella, as an administrative, policy group that deals with issues like the website, newsletter, etc. She said that SOS and the groups in San Miguel County don’t say no to anybody. But they do delegate, telling those who make the proposals that they have to research grant opportunities, form a committee, etc.
Keith suggested that the Board be the place to have the discussions about what’s going on in sustainability, what the vision is, how to bring people together. He said we should try to balance this with the administrative functions.
Discussion of SASCO’s Role
Carolyn said we need to focus the conversation and suggested that we identify common words or themes. The group brainstormed a list of words to characterize the role of the organization, as follows:
- Convener (networking/communication)
- Facilitator
- Incubator/Seeder
- Advocate
- Resource
- Monitor—we perceive gaps, and fill them only as we absolutely need to
- Educator—seeding and shocking
- Synthesizer/Integrator
Motivator - Model (internally)
- Managing
- Not Duplicating
- Doer? Are we the ones that manage specific projects, or do they get done as a result of our efforts, our prodding/facilitation?
Werner said one of our functions is to enable, to support the sense of place, the sense of community. This involves a spiritual aspect of taking care of where we are in sustainable ways, and also education. Rebecca said we need to have more membership, but agreed that we can’t do that without education: we have to find a way to make people love to take care of our region. Marcus noted that a lot of education, advocacy happens via these other functions, such as networking and facilitating. So we don’t need to have these be specific identified functions.
Lisa asked: do we fill the gap or do we help others fill the gap? Marcus noted that the SLED committee identified a gap, convened people, filled that gap, and then it spun off. Dick noted that SWCRES came to us for a home, and we have served as an umbrella for a group of people to work under. Marcus asked whether, if SEC has a project they want to pursue, do we then take that on, fund it, and manage it, or does it spin out of that group as an independent project? Jim observed that the role of the Farm-to-School Committee should be to take the larger view and synthesize other efforts.
Marcus asked: “When do we need to be SASCO as a group, as a Board, versus being an open source network?” He said the internally focused work takes time away from the synthesizing, integrating, etc.
Sara asked whether our committees are SASCO, or are we just a convener, a function? That is—what do we say SASCO is? Rebecca observed that if we are just a convener, then maybe there’s a reason we don’t have greater name recognition. Marcus noted that committees convene, and this is where collaborations happen. Projects then spin out of that.
Tami asked what the relationship is, then, between the committees and the Board/SASCO. Dick said he sees public policy as the place where we can have the biggest impact on sustainability. We are uniquely positioned to do this. If a decision is made in a committee, then they need approval by the Board.
Marcus said maybe the Board could be umbrella where our membership comes together to articulate a position. For example, as issues come up, we could try to develop broad-based consensus on issues to put forward a position. Then it would be less of a committee or a Board coming together and articulating its view. For instance, on the issue of Twin Buttes, there was not a consensus among the Board, so we didn’t offer an example as an organization. But maybe the Policy Committee could spawn a coalition that offers a coherent policy position (though we would then lose the concept of the “Sustainability Alliance” speaking as one voice).
Lisa observed that it is hard to get consensus, to get the group to speak as one voice. She said there is a lot of administrative work involved as well. So it may be more practical to be more decentralized. Marcus said he still sees differences between being a resource, a convener, and an advocate.
Werner noted that we also play a role as a community knowledge base. Dick asked whether we should still continue to say we engage in “research on best practices”—wording that was in the old mission statement. He said maybe we don’t really do this, especially on a regional basis. The Environmental Center already has a lot of these resources.
Dick suggested that maybe we should even change our name to the “La Plata County” Sustainability Alliance. Denise agreed that maybe we don’t need to be regional, because times have changed. There was general Board agreement that LPC sounds good as a focus. But Jim noted that food is a regional issue—or maybe we should be talking bioregion instead.
Marcus said that maybe the strategy is the mission—that we’re going to communicate, convene, facilitate, etc. in order to do [X]. Dick observed that we should focus our priority-setting on the strategies. As long as a strategy is moving toward sustainability, then it’s within our mission. So what do we choose or not choose to pursue?
Lisa said we need more specificity about what our specific role is as an organization in achieving the overall goal of sustainability.
Specific “Key Words”
The group voted on the “top words” they liked. The winners were:
- Synthesize/Integrate: 8 votes
- Advocate (related to public policy)/Promote: 6
- Facilitate: 6
- Incubate: 5
Dick noted that synthesizing/integrating is an input function, while the others are output functions. He asked: what’s the most effective way of accomplishing our larger goal? Marcus said we need to identify ways to link advocacy with synthesizing/facilitating (i.e., empowering others to go out on their own). He said we could connect energy issues to other issues to get at something more systemic—connections with food, transportation, etc.
Tami observed that the Sustainability Alliance is not always the one on the ground doing all the stuff, necessarily.
Denise asked whether there is a “new business incubator” program in La Plata County, and if so, is this duplicative? She said we could help to promote new business programs.
Marcus said we are actively trying within our committees to bring people in around specific issues. We are integrating talents and passions. At a higher level, we are trying to integrate all the issues. He suggested that we focus the committee work more on the synthesizing/incubating function. Then what we do as a group is to try to find the systemic connections.
Linda suggested that we use the Board as a vehicle for bringing people together around issues. In other words: the Board synthesizes in a cross-sector manner (between food, health, energy, etc), and the committees synthesize within sectors (food, energy, etc).
Sara suggested that our role is “facilitating the synthesizing.” This is an enabling function—we get people together to get it done. We leverage.
Marcus asked whether we can both “facilitate and advocate”. Can we facilitate people to get together around a common idea that can be advocated?
Jim said he sees two primary roles for the organization: facilitation and leadership.
Linda said that, in other words, the Board creates the space where people can come in and form the committees, and the Board decides where the public policy areas go?
Dick noted that so far, any proposals to take a policy position have come from specific committees, for review by the Board. The specific action to be taken may then go back to the committee. He asked, “How can we most effectively advocate, as a group?” Maybe we collectively advocate, or we’re the spokesperson for the issue. But we need a mechanism for making this choice.
Marcus said that one of the things we can do is try to facilitate a community response to a public policy issue, by getting more groups, sectors around the issue. Jim said a good example is Twin Buttes. There was no SASCO position, but we could facilitate a public dialogue. Dick said that if we are associating the name of the group with a publicly stated position, then the Board must make that decision to ensure the integrity of the organization. Marcus said we need a mechanism or function to deal with this type of issue.
Marcus suggested that our monthly Board meetings should have a strong element of discussion, forum for synthesis—not just a presentation/education role. Werner said our monthly meetings are not strictly education—they involve working with other groups, bringing people together. Education is a byproduct.
Heather said she sees facilitation as an outcome of the public library meetings she and Kevin are coordinating. The goal is for people to take from the meetings and inspire. Kevin said he sees the events as a celebration—of education, advocacy, challenge. They provide a space to talk, come together, and flow organically.
Lisa said the library meetings also play an incubation role. They provide a space for people to come together, start projects, and potentially spin off. This type of incubation mostly happens at the committee level.
Carolyn suggested that we give the mission statement task to an ad hoc committee, and allow it to devise short vision that could lead into the mission. She said we could state the broad, then the directional. Marcus agreed that the mission that will come out of this should be more strategic, to help us decide what to take on and what not to. It should provide a way to focus.
ACTION ITEM: Lisa, Carolyn, Sara, and Marcus agreed to form a Mission Statement Committee and will report back on it during the next Board meeting.
Decision Making Structure
Dick noted that the current method for decision making is Robert’s Rules of Order, but that there have also been instances where a smaller group felt one way, and the issue never came to a vote.
Linda asked how we have been able to avoid messiness.
Dick said the Executive Committee has made a lot of small decisions. If it is a policy or budgetary issue, it is either brought to a committee or to the full Board. If it has appeared that we’re clearly not in agreement, then it has been brought to consensus. Otherwise, we use the parliamentary/majority rules.
Carolyn suggested that we could also go by “lack of major objection.” In other words, we try to identify a percentage of people that can agree with the decision.
Jim said it seems like our sense is that we want consensus, but that’s not the formal procedure.
Werner said we could ask: do you disagree with this decision personally, or is it bad for the whole organization?
Linda said the responsibility is to think of the overall health and wellbeing of the organization, even if personally we are not 100% there. As a Board, we should always put the needs of the organization first.
Katy observed that our experience has been to discuss until we generally agree, then go to a vote. She said we need to be more proactive—to make a motion, refocus the group, and go to the vote.
Jim said he likes using Robert’s Rules, which enable us to look for a tolerable level of disapproval. He said it also depends on individuals and who is facilitating and attending the meeting.
Werner said another option is to use a “supermajority “of a given ratio (7/10, 9/10).
Tom said it may depend on the type of decision—some need consensus, some don’t.
Marcus suggested that we make motion to take a vote, to decide on what kind of procedure will be taken.
Dick said it is already written in the bylaws that, if we make a public policy decision, then we use a super majority. But the bigger issue is what decisions are made by the Board? And what are made by the EC? (If these are not unanimous, they go to Board). And what goes to committees?
Rebecca added that we also need a procedure to limit the public from interjecting and throwing off a Board decision.
Tami noted that some Boards put a public comment period on the agenda, which can occur at the beginning. But then the Board has to be disciplined to not take public input at other times during the meeting.
Jim observed that we have all these mechanisms in place; we just need to use them better.
ACTION ITEM: Werner said we need to pull together a summary sheet for how to run the Board meetings. Katy said she had a summary from a 4H meeting and will distribute it to those interested.
Board Meetings: Oversight, Substance, and Frequency
Dick said we could potentially rotate tasks such as agenda preparation and Board meeting facilitation. This would enable more people to attend the EC meetings and have that experience. We would still have officers like the Chair, Vice Chair, etc. Werner added that this also helps educate Board members.
Marcus asked what business/administrative functions do we feel are necessary, as a Board? Dick said he spends a lot of time collating. He suggested that maybe we hold bimonthly business meetings, alternating with community discussions around synergistic issues. He said this would be more fun and more engaging for our members. But we would need to figure out how to narrow the agenda for business meetings.
Jim observed that rotating the Chair of business meetings is problematic. He suggested maybe instead we could rotate facilitation of discussions around the group. He said the Chair should lead the meeting and set the agenda, as set in Bylaws. Tom suggested that maybe we need a second Vice Chair who culls information, responds. Rebecca said her role as Vice Chair includes sending notices to the media about upcoming meetings, and responding to requests.
Keith said the Chair role needs a good definition. Lisa read the list of Chair tasks that Dick had compiled. Tami suggested that maybe the EC could make a decision on how tasks are divvied up/delegated.
Marcus asked what kind of administrative functions the committees should take on. Lisa said it depends whether we promote the organization as a whole, or purely our committee activities, especially in outreach materials. Tom said maybe we need to have a publications function—to prepare the Annual Report, newsletter, outreach materials, etc.
Marcus said the Board functions include decision making, policy decisions, and discussions.
Keith suggested that maybe the Board itself doesn’t need to meet that often. Dick said we amended the Bylaws to allow e-mail passage of resolutions. Lisa observed that this make it sounds like the EC is becoming a glorified Board, doing most of the work.
Dick said maybe we if we create a second Vice Chair, this person could do more responding to inquiries, collating info. This role could be defined by resolution. Tom said maybe we could just specify VC1 and VC2, and the EC then defines their responsibilities.
Marcus said it sounds like the rest of the Board would then do more of the Committee work.
Dick said that in terms of chair responsibilities, we could always authorize the Chair to be able to delegate presiding over meetings to others. But then we still need someone to be the voice of organization. Rebecca suggested maybe having a designated spokesperson, and then rotating the Chair.
Linda asked what would happen if someone who has no experience in this becomes Chair or a rotating Chair—what impact would this have on the overall well-being of the organization. She said we need to identify what can be delegated to a Rotating Chair, and what cannot, based on the well-being of the organization.
Katy said we could designate a Rotating Chair, and rotating chair’s assistant, one per month, and outline a clear list of duties. Dick agreed this could be a nice compromise—it gets Board members engaged, and has an educational component. Over a year or two, each member would have gotten a picture of what’s done.
Lisa said this would be much easier with a password-protected Wiki, shared documents. Marcus said the Environmental Center uses a handbook. Dick said Google Doc allows for shared access among officers.
Jim said he finds these proposals for rotation very confusing. He would prefer delegating tasks throughout the year.
Werner said he would be willing to take on the Chair, with the understanding that he would step back if he doesn’t get adequate support. He would then not continue as E&O head. He said it would be useful to have a second Vice Chair to share the load, create accountability.
Denise said she will commit to the regional effort of the organization.
The group compiled a list of critical organizational tasks, including:
- culling info
- reviewing parking lot
- assigning issues to committees
- acting as spokesperson
- delegating
- signing checks
- setting agenda
- facilitating meetings of Board
- drafting annual report
- serving on committees
- sending notices to media
- responding to inquiries
- setting and approving budget or expenditures
- maintaining website
- coordinating logistics of meetings
- developing outreach materials
- creating newsletter
Motion: That the Board create the position of an additional elected officer to serve on the Executive Committee, with the title to be recommended by the Executive Committee at the next Board meeting.
All were in favor.
Motion: That the Board name Werner Heiber as the next Chair of the Sustainability Alliance, Rebecca Koeppen as Vice Chair, Carolyn Moller as Treasurer, Lisa Mastny as Secretary, and Sara Holt as a yet-to-be named officer.
All were in favor.
Committee Structure
Jim observed that we have two types of committees: (1) topical/sector, which could spin off projects, and (2) functional. Topical committees include: SLED, Food and Ag, SEC. Functional include: Policy, E&O, Marketing/Fundraising. He said their relationships to the organization would by necessity be different.
Marcus asked whether we need a separate Policy Committee, versus having the whole Board engaged in that kind of discussion. Jim said maybe we just need a policy support committee that reports to the Board. Dick noted that the current committee is tackling policy issues not being addressed elsewhere in the organization. Marcus asked whether this function could be a big function of the entire Board—i.e., a part of Board business meetings.
Lisa said it would be good to have a space where this policy info could be shared more widely. Werner noted that policy expands to the state and national level. Lisa suggested that the policy committee could identify key topics/ideas that are pressing, etc., and then could share key issues with the Board, for the bimonthly “synergy” discussions.
Rebecca said that we need a separate policy committee to help fulfill the policy function.
Lisa suggested that we could have ideas from the various topical areas simmer up to a bigger synergy discussion among the Board. This could then help to generate ideas for new projects for existing committees, or possibly lead to formation of new committees. This makes the committee activities more holistically focused.
Dick suggested that in the odd months, we could designate a specific topic for the broader synergy meetings. He said the two big issues are the City of Durango’s revised land-use plan and the County Comp. Plan. So how can we use our meetings to focus our attention and the larger community on this? He said the Policy Committee could help generate the discussion agenda.
Marcus noted that the synergy meetings could be open to invited groups for a substantive discussion, depending on the topic. This would generate systemic discussion and would be a good way to get new volunteers and Board members, and to route people to committees.
Motion: That the Board alternate its monthly meetings between Board Business meetings and new “Sustainability Dialogue” meetings focused on discussion of specific topics and featuring invited guests.
All were in favor.
Rebecca suggested that maybe the EC meetings should remain monthly, to remain the bridge between the other meetings.
Marcus asked what would then happen at Board business meetings. Is more needed to connect the committees to the Board? Werner said the committees could continue to inform the Board via a monthly report. If they have an action item, they could just e-mail it around.
Marcus asked whether there is still a role for the E&O committee, and if so who would be the chair? Sara suggested that E&O take on more of a marketing, fundraising, and outreach role. Maybe it could be the Outreach and Marketing committee....OM.
Marcus said that committees should all do an internal check, based on the retreat discussions: i.e., are they helping with synthesizing, integrating, incubating? Are they feeding into policy discussions?
Jim suggested that maybe we should make a list of future committees that we might need to cover gaps—such as health, housing, etc. This could be a way to plug volunteers in.
Katy said maybe they could do an evaluation as to whether they are moving toward goals. She said we need a mechanism for the overall group to read committee reports, provide feedback. Tami suggested that maybe the committees could self-evaluate.
Marcus suggested that at a future Board meeting, maybe each committee can present it goals, what they’re thinking about. Then the rest of the Board can discuss how these goals are related to the larger mission.
Marcus asked whether there would ever be a situation where a committee has “gone rogue”. If so, how would we handle that? He said committees might come in and out of existence, depending on resources, etc.
Tami said it seem that the Board is moving in the direction of greater autonomy for the committees. But what might be scenarios where the Board would want to be more involved? Dick said that last year, the EC asked committees to maintain their own “parking lot” of issues, review that quarterly, and include it in reports. That way the full Board could track issues/actions. Jim said that if a committee is using the Sustainability Alliance name, then maybe it needs to get more oversight, be accountable. But if the committee is fairly independent, then it doesn’t need such oversight.
Marcus raised the idea of common resources, and how those get divided/used. One example would be applying for County funding. We need a mechanism to have that discussion, in light of our mission. How do we divide shared funding or resources?
Tami said we need to remain aware of the relationship between the Board and committees on an ongoing basis.
Keith suggested that maybe the incubation meetings would focus on a topic, but would also allow for reports from that specific committee as well.
Retreat Recap
What went well?
Marcus said he sensed a feeling of forward momentum, compared to last year’s retreat.
Dick said the retreat committee did a great job in framing the discussion. He said the room/setting really helped as well.
What didn’t go well?
Heather said we still need to figure out where to address strategic planning.