Board Minutes July 22 2002 Present: Ruth Tsukishima, Jim Sayre, Jonn Oldym, Patrick Clark, Sharlene Smith, Alexandra Samuel Regrets: Alison Curtis, Amali DiSilva, Jason Currell Staff: Peter Royce, Steven Chan 1. Agenda adopted 2. Minutes of last meeting adopted 3. Co-ordinator's report (see separate submission from Peter) A) - Sharlene volunteered to make presentation at August 5 event with Allan Rock B) - asking for $6K forVancouver Foundation report - need to make an impression with a flashy report in order to get their support for future proposals - Jonn pointed out that report has been outstanding for three years - Steven argues that we've accomplished all the goals of the proposal many times over, but we haven't made that clear to them - as Peter points out, the Vancouver Foundation needs to see that we've made use of their funds - Sharlene noted that there seems to be some confusion about the purpose of this report; if it can be our general promotional material and also serve the purpose of the foundation report, great -- but we need to see the copy; easier for Board to give feedback if we can see copy - concluded that staff will go back and consider how to proceed; sense that Board not comfortable allocating all our print resources to one piece C) Langara deal ended - sense that they feel dial-up is outdated, looking to make high-speed deal - we failed to convince our liaison that we're about more than Net access - Jonn concerned that we need to account for this failure - Sharlene pointed out that VCN has no clear metrics for assessing our organization's success/failure so be careful how we use these terms - we will still keep the server and probably some of the users will become members 4. Technical Coordinator - group service lines have been failing for the past week; failed completely today - Sharlene asked whether Marnie has a communications strategy for managing this; Peter thinks not and agrees we need to pursue this - Jonn asked why we don't get a monthly technical report - Sharlene noted that we had discussed this a while ago and bimonthly seemed to make sense - Steven pointed out that it's the nature of the tech coordinator job that many projects are longer-term so monthly reports would be repetitive - Sharlene pointed out that we'd discussed crisis communications after last summer's hard drive failure, and that Steven noted many of these processes were already documented -- so now is the time to refer to that documentation; perhaps Marnie could work on codifying that documentation 5. Committee reports A. Fundraising: we're focusing on building relationships with funders. This is taking a lot of Peter's time but we agreed it was worthwhile. B. Finance report -- to combine with budget 6. Budget discussion The last board meeting left mandate to come up with break even budget. Version 1 The $34k projected deficit for this year will be more like $21k once we calculate in our recent $13K from CAP. Calculates staff at current level. Removes our contingency account. Loss is $13, 657 Version 2 --- the break-even or better Puts some staff (Peter/Steven) to 75%, everyone else at 50% as of Februrary (when CAP round II and CAP III falls through, no other funding appears). Removes contingency fund. Basically the only difference between Version 1 and Version 2 is in wages. Sharlene points out that since figures are changing, we will need to approve the final budget at September's board mtg -- by which time we'll have the final actual numbers for Fiscal year 2001-2. Patrick suggests we should regard reserve fund as an emergency worst-case; if we plan on dipping into it we'll end up using it all up here and there. There are a lot of variables still up in the air. Jim, Ruth, Peter all expressed support for scenario 1. Ruth points out that as of Feb 28 we still have everyone fully staffed, which theoretically should free up some staff for special projects. Jonn argues we need some aggressive fundraising. Sharlene points out that the whole board is responsible for fundraising, and suggests that Jonn reviews Alex suggested that we need to separate the fundraising discussion from the budget discussion. Sharlene pointed out that we've already considered our strategic priorities, and that could drive our fundraising strategy. On the fundraising front, she suggested we should get our pitch in the bag and then consider possible funders. Jim points out that our revenue is disproportionately from government project funding, and very little from membership. This makes our long-run future unclear. Sharlene and Peter noted that we've been aware and worried about that. Alex moved for version I, which was unanimously accepted. The finance committee will revise the version I budget to present final numbers at the September board meeting. 7. Gaming commission resolution The gaming commission wants an unalterable clause saying that in the event of dissolution, we'd give up any leftover money to other organizations. We already had an unalterable clause like that (predating the gaming commission's requirement) but didn't specifically limit it to BC organizations. So we need an additional clause -- which we can do by just adding an additional resolution. We need to pass this in order to get our $33k. The resolution read: RESOLVED that should the Vancouver Community Network, which receives charitable gaming funds from licensed charitable gaming and/or direct charitable access, at any time dissolve or cease to exist, have any and all gaming monies or assets purchased with gaming funds held at the date of dissolution or cessation or existence these/they shall be distributed by the Vancouver Community Network to such charitable organization or organizations in British Columbia having a similar charitable purpose. RESOLVED FURTHER that the foregoing resolution shall not be altered or amended and shall continue to be binding on the Vancouver Community Network. RESOLVED FURTHER that the Vancouver Community Network will provide its undertaking, by delivery of a copy of this resolution to the BC Gaming Commission, that it will abide by the limits on the application of its assets on dissolution as provided herein. CERTIFIED to be true and correct copy of a resolution unanimously passed the Board of Directors of the Vancouver Community Network at a meeting held on July 22, 2002. Signed: Alex moved that we pass this resolution. Jonn seconded it. In favour: Jonn Oldym, Jim Sayre, Ruth Tsukishima, Sharlene Smith, Patrick Clark, Alexandra Samuel. None opposed. 8. Other updates Peter asked whether we would approve spending on a logo redesign. Sharlene pointed out this is part of the same discussion we had earlier on our communications/printing budget for 2001-2. We could give the staff direction to use the $5k in that budget line item for logo design and whatever items move us in our targeted direction. Peter pointed out that we're dealing in such large figures coming in and then going out, $1k is a small amount if it supports our strategic goals. Alex suggested that the board would be in a better position to step out of decisions re: small figures if Peter could show us the big picture plan of how this all fits together. Jonn also expressed concern about lack of information. Sharlene suggests that anyone who hasn't seen them look at Steven's 5 docs; they will be online on the sympa share at http://vancouvercommunity.net/lists Peter agreed that staff could come back to us with a clearer communications strategy. Steven noted that a one-year budget planning process is too short-term; many of our projects are multi-year, and the one-year budget cycle is unnatural. Three years is probably more natural. It takes a year to put together a proposal because we never put together a proposal by ourselves. Alex raised concerns about why we're in a position that requires a year to create any proposal. Sharlene notes that while we do need more long-term planning, this is the first year that we have a budget approved for the next fiscal year. Jonn proposed a motion that we use $1k for our logo and $4k for our report. Patrick seconded. Alex pointed out that we'd already discussed this and agreed that staff would review, and could spend out of the budget. Sharlene suggested a motion was unnecessary. Jonn withdrew the motion. NEXT BOARD MEETING: September 30. Sharlene notes there will be a flurry of materials circulating before that meeting, which people should keep an eye out for. Meeting adjourned.