[SBU Board] Our Contribution to Seattle NextGenBridge

Mon Apr 18 08:28:20 PDT 2016

Tim, I echo Jen’s statement that you are a great president. Nobody on the board wants to place “blame” on anybody. We are 12 intelligent people who are volunteering our time because we love the game of bridge. We as a board voted to give NGB $1000 of unit money and we voted on exactly how we were going to allocate this money.

Taking all emotions out of the situation at hand, here is my issue. I don’t think you have the authority to make this decision. Even if I agreed with your decision, I would still believe this.

I think it sets a bad precedent. Your statement that "we talked at tear down *and decided* sounds like an illegal, unannounced board meeting. To be 100% clear, I know this wasn’t your intention and I know that all of your intentions are good. I am most worried about the process and the precedent this decision would be setting for future decisions the board makes.

I, too, understand why you want this resolved before John leaves town. But, as Unit President, don’t you have the authority to write checks?

From: Sbuboard [mailto:sbuboard-bounces+kimen=forestridge.org at mailman.celestial.com] On Behalf Of Jen Chalfan
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 7:32 AM
To: Seattle ACBL Unit Board <sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com>
Subject: Re: [SBU Board] Our Contribution to Seattle NextGenBridge

I understand that John would like to resolve this before going out of town, and Tim, I appreciate your sensitivity around doing the right thing for the kids. However, I still don't see why we would do anything other than follow through on the plan our board agreed upon in March.

Tim, I think you are a good president, and I know you care a lot about doing the right thing for bridge, both for our organization and local youth bridge. But I don't understand why you are authorized to make this decision, which goes against the board's stated decision in the March meeting.

We have an agreed-upon plan for supporting this organization. It looks like the only remaining work item is to determine how much the one student in need of financial aid should be given.

Jen

On Monday, April 18, 2016, Tim White <trkwhite at gmail.com<mailto:trkwhite at gmail.com>> wrote:
I am as disappointed as anyone about what has transpired.  I understand the history.

I try to take a pragmatic view of circumstances.  Today is John W's last day here before departing for 3+ weeks.  Should we be unable to navigate a redo of the grant process to support an outcome for May 6 (something I feel would be quite difficult), the end beneficiaries of the grant -- the kids -- will be the ones most impacted.  If we were to find the time and means to redo the entire process in John's absence, I think it likely we would end up approving the concept John has coordinated.

I would like this not to cause hard feelings or a schism on the Unit Board.  I would greatly prefer to do things in more orderly way.   Circumstances allow little room to maneuver.  Please blame me -- I take responsibility for the path forward.  John W continues to have the green light to move forward with the concept he coordinated.

I ask that individually and collectively, Ann, Patti and John W (SNGB board members) impress upon Anne Farmer our extreme disappointment and displeasure with the unfolding of events related to the grant the Unit Board approved and the strain this has caused the Unit Board.

Tim

On Apr 17, 2016, at 10:47 PM, Jen Chalfan <jenchalfan at gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jenchalfan at gmail.com');>> wrote:

I have very strong feelings about this - we voted as a board to give money to members of Seattle Next Gen Bridge under specific terms at the March SBU meeting. For your reference, here is a quote from our meeting minutes:
Seattle NextGenBridge
Ann Farmer came to the meeting to request that we fund this organization to send six kids to Washington DC for the youth NABC. The total cost is $10k, she is getting $2.5k from the ACBL educational foundation, and would like the SBU to match that donation.

The organization has 20 kids.They have experienced about a 50% attrition rate over the school year.

Motion 16-6: Tim moved that we set aside $1000 as follows:

  *   We will write a check to the winning team of the spring end of year tournament for $250.

  *   We will fund up to $750 to be paid directly to the families of kids on the basis of financial need, to subsidize the trip to the 2016 summer NABC. If there is less than $750 of need, the additional money will not be provided.
David seconded, motion passed unopposed.

This is not open to interpretation, discussion, or negotiation. As I see it, the board has voted to give money as specified in Motion 16-6. If we want to change this allocation, it would be appropriate to follow our processes: meet with quorum (in person or via email/telecon), propose and second a motion, and vote upon that motion. It is counter to the methodical, transparent way we run our organization to work outside this process to completely overhaul the Seattle Next Gen Bridge funding that we voted on.

At the April meeting, we discussed the specifics of how the need-based funding would be distributed, as is captured in the meeting minutes excerpted below:

Seattle Next-Gen Bridge

The unit will give $125 checks to each of the two players on the winning pair. We will get giant novelty checks for the presentation ceremony.

We discussed how the $750 need-based money will be distributed. John Weinberg, Patti, and Ann Romeo will push the Seattle Next-Gen Bridge board to create a process for applying for the scholarships. John, Patti, and Ann Romeo will be the ones who determine to whom the money will go, in what amounts.

This does not change anything about our method or quantity of funding - it simply clarifies how to select as recipients from all candidates identifying themselves as having financial need.

I am wholly against giving money to Seattle Next Gen Bridge in any other allocation than that specified in Motion 16-6. And I strongly believe that we need to follow our units process in making changes of this magnitude.

-Jen

On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Tim White <trkwhite at gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','trkwhite at gmail.com');>> wrote:
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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sbuboard-bounces%2Bkimen');>=forestridge.org at mailman.celestial.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

_______________________________________________
Sbuboard mailing list
Sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com');>
http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/sbuboard

_______________________________________________
Sbuboard mailing list
Sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com');>
http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/sbuboard

_______________________________________________
Sbuboard mailing list
Sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','Sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com');>
http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/sbuboard

_______________________________________________
Sbuboard mailing list
Sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/20160418/92a74b3d/attachment-0001.html>