[SBU Board] Our Contribution to Seattle NextGenBridge

Sun Apr 17 21:54:51 PDT 2016

Fellow Board Members,

Thank you to everyone who has weighed in on this.  There was further discussion amongst some of us this evening during tear down at Bothell.  I share the view that the intended recipient's apparent inability to grasp -- and apparent reluctance to implement -- the concept we approved (including a single overall winning pair) is unfortunate.  We've learned something from this experience.  Down the road, if and when we consider and act on another grant request from SNGB, I feel we should put the elements and associated conditions of the grant in writing, including measures to ensure its implementation as approved.

Presently, given constraints of timing and (un)availabilities, it is impractical to convene the Unit Board to consider an alternative proposal that might be solicited from SNGB in connection with the May 6 event, and might or might not ever come our way.  SNGB asked us for $2,500 for travel support.  The particulars of the grant the Unit Board approved were formulated by us, not SNGB, and I doubt we would get something much different or in any additional detail -- if at all -- from what we were given before.  

A majority of Unit Board members are supportive of the concept John Weinberg worked out with Anne Farmer.  Unit Board members, Ann and Patti, will make the presentation directly to the winners on May 6 on behalf of Seattle Unit 446.  The amount is set (capped) at $400, below the maximum $250 + $750 we were prepared to fund.  It is in the vein of our objective of supporting youth bridge.

I have given John W the green light to proceed with implementation of the concept he has coordinated.  I feel it is within the general nature and level of financial commitment of the grant we approved and the only practical approach to supporting the SNGB May 6 year-end event.  I believe it makes the best of the situation at hand.

Tim

On Apr 17, 2016, at 1:34 PM, "JC (TsuKata)" <tsukata at tsukata.org> wrote:

> I mostly want to +1 on Kim's comments.  While there is nothing in this compromise that I would not have voted to approve had it been presented this clearly and succinctly at the initial meeting, I am concerned about the precedent and practice of how this has happened.  Part of the reason we put so many controls on the funding is that Anne Farmer has a history of re-allocating the board's funding without communication and because the initial proposal we got from Anne was so unclear.  
> 
> That having been said, it is entirely reasonable for NextGenBridge to come back with an alternate proposal for a vote given logistics and/or improved information, but we're now without a meeting to do that motion and handle it in the way we need to do via by-laws, right?  Don't we have to have an in person meeting and quorum to approve this or do the by-laws allow for us to have an adjunct via email?
> 
> If we can't handle this properly within our by-laws, I think we need to stick with the dollar amounts we allocated.  We can contribute the amount allocated for an award, which Anne and/or NGB can add to as they see fit to get to the awards Anne intends to distribute and/or add to the awards that Anne wants to distribute.  We can contribute the amount allocated for need-based travel expenses. 
> 
> Thanks,
> JC
> 
> 
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Eng, Kim <Keng at forestridge.org> wrote:
> I have to admit I am a little confused. I am not clear why we as a board vote on a proposal and agree what we want to do, and then Anne decides that she wants to do something different. And we let her.
> 
>  
> 
> This is bridge. There aren’t 4 winners. There are 2.
> 
>  
> 
> To be clear, I am sorry John, that you and the others on the next gen board have to deal with this craziness. But, how are we going to stop the craziness if we let it happen?
> 
>  
> 
> As a matter of policy, I am uncomfortable with the board approving one number and then a subset of members agreeing to a different number. This is true no matter what the money is going to.
> 
>  
> 
> Does this mean that we are only offering $600 as a financial scholarship instead of $750? I get that Anne thinks there is only one family that may need it this year. What about the following years?
> 
>  
> 
> I would much prefer giving Seattle Unit money to kids in need and not pretending that there are 4 winners.
> 
>  
> 
> Clearly I’m frustrated. Probably not half as frustrated as you were, John, during the phone call.
> 
>  
> 
> Kim
> 
>  
> 
> From: Sbuboard [mailto:sbuboard-bounces+kimen=forestridge.org at mailman.celestial.com] On Behalf Of John
> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 2:34 PM
> To: Seattle ACBL Unit Board <sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com>
> Subject: [SBU Board] Our Contribution to Seattle NextGenBridge
> 
>  
> 
> Greetings, all!
> 
>  
> 
> As we decided at our board meeting this week, I called Anne Farmer to work out the details for our contribution to the kids in her group.
> 
> As always seems to be the case in this relationship, things did not go entirely smoothly or as expected.
> 
> But I think we have worked out a resolution which will satisfy just about everybody.
> 
>  
> 
> As you recall, Anne is running the end-of-season tournament for her kids on May 6.
> 
> Our intention was to give $125 cash to each member of the winning pair.
> 
>  
> 
> Her organization is also taking some of the kids in the group to the Youth NABCs in Washington D.C.
> 
> We offered to pay up to $750 total to kids who could demonstrate to our satisfaction that they needed the subsidy.
> 
>  
> 
> Here is what has developed since then. 
> 
> At the tournament May 6, there will be four winners – a North-South pair, and an East-West pair.
> 
> Also, Anne wants to award an Amazon gift card of $100 to each of the winners.
> 
>  
> 
> As to travel to D.C., she expects a total of four kids to go, all from the McClure Middle School.
> 
> Of those, she thinks three of the families are financially self-sufficient; and only one kid needs a partial subsidy to be able to go.
> 
> Anne says she is prepared to pay that subsidy herself (or maybe it is Seattle NextGenBridge money).
> 
>  
> 
> She and I discussed it (at some length!); and here is what we worked out, subject to your approval.
> 
> We propose that the Unit buy the four Amazon gift cards, for a total of $400.
> 
> Patti, or Ann Romeo, will be present at the tournament, and will award those prizes to the four winners, on behalf of the Unit.
> 
> Travel subsidies will be totally up to Anne Farmer and NextGenBridge.
> 
>  
> 
> I have discussed this proposed resolution with Tim, and with Patti and Ann Romeo.
> 
> Patti, Ann and I are the members of our Unit board who are also members of the board of Seattle NextGenBridge.
> 
> The four of this are agreeable to this resolution – although I think all of us are a little frustrated as to the bumpy road which led to it.
> 
>  
> 
> The purpose of this e-mail is to see if any of the other members of the Unit board object to this resolution.
> 
> If so, please “reply to all” this weekend.
> 
> But if I don’t hear any prompt objections from anyone, I will let Anne know that this will be the arrangement.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>  
> 
> John W.
> 
>  
> 
> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
> 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sbuboard mailing list
> Sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/sbuboard
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sbuboard mailing list
> Sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/sbuboard

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/sbuboard/attachments/20160417/8057f2e5/attachment-0001.html>