Board Minutes: December 9, 2024

Dec 9, 2024 7:00 PM

Agenda

• Call to Order at 7:09pm
• Roll Call: Matt Stares (MS), Amy Townsend (AT), Emiko Bigler (EB),  David Reynolds (DR), Julia Ratchford (JR), Jody Conant (JC), Karen Ruedinger (KR),  Liz Gohel (LG), Doug Wurl (DW), Adrianna Breslin (AB), Sam Doletzky (SD), Chris Zylstra (CZ), Mike Carnevale (MC), Kim Carnevale (KC)

• Discussion with CZ in relation to proposed survey:
  • KR: Brought and provided copies of EGR crew bylaws and proposed parent survey
  • KR: focusing on bylaws as it is her direction for her role on the board. KR has reviewed and asked for legal support/questions from Charlie’s Dad as they are not clear. 
  • CZ: Experience with bylaws is all clubs are under the 501(c)(3) boosters umbrella. When a new sport goes from district funded to club model, it is created for communication and fundraising. No evaluation, no hiring/firing. KR: Our bylaws do not reference that. We are not registered directly with LARA (note: LARA is the State of Michigan Licensing and Regulatory Affairs which is where organizations, both for profit and non-profit, officially register and get their license to operate). We should document our coverage under the Boosters legal filing with the State in our Bylaws to add clarity and to avoid this question in the future.
  • CZ: When was the inception of the crew team? Could not find information. MS: 1999. It was purely a club and second iteration of the bylaws amended as the board had authority of the coaching. This is now separate in the 2015 revision and the school took charge of the coaching. CZ: From other clubs falling underneath the umbrella of interscholastic sports, EGRPS does not have the financial capacity to fund. Hence club sport. The club supports the success of those programs through fundraising. KR: We should update the bylaws. CZ: Agreed. We have new boosters co-presidents and that will be a process to update the bylaws so we are all speaking the same language. KR: Is there documentation we can see re: boosters and 501(3)? CZ: Will provide the club with the documentation. Reconciling our books and sending financial statement to booster is part of that process. Boosters bylaws are outdated as well. 
  • KR: Parent association- we are all subject to liability. MS/SD: we have US rowing insurance EB: Is the board covered? DR: Feels we are but can confirm.
  • DR to KR: what is the concern with the bylaws?
  • KR: Vagueness of the language. Role, dues, references to Athletic Director. No discussion of our relationship to the boosters and athletic department or directives of the president. No discussion in the bylaws with the relationship of the board with the coaching staff. DR: this is open to interpretation. No statement because we do not dictate how coaches operate. 
  • EB: part of the confusion is having MS on the board in a dual role as head coach and president. DR: He is not doing anything conflicting in his role. 
  • EB: Feels there is a blurring of lines between coaching and president. MS: There is no other experience on the board for coaching. DR: other than the survey, what have we disagreed on? KR: The survey is highlighting discrepancies of understanding among board members.
  • CZ: There are no other clubs that the board sends out a survey. 
  • EB: Are there other boards that have coaches as a board member? CZ: What is your role as president? MS: Preside over meetings. 
  • DW: Can you clarify the boards for school sport- is there for fundraising and communication, if that is our role- who has the fiduciary responsibility to use the funds? CZ: The board. The coach asks for what they need. The board approves or says we can or cannot do. DW: Then we need to amend to say the board has the ability to distribute funds and not just raise money.
  • KR: when i sought to do the survey- it was to help us respond to the association membership how things are going. Pushback: what questions go beyond the scope. Board members’ only directive is the bylaws.  Unfortunately the bylaws have significant grey areas. KR is not sure the bylaws support that we are the voice of the parents and they are not well defined.
  • MS: The role of the coaching team is to build and run the program. As soon as that is polluted from the parent point of view, goals are not reached. Goal is still to put kids through the program and come out with skills and lessons learned. 
  • KR: if there is a sentiment from parents that fees are too much, too much travel, overnights, etc. we start to lose families. The survey can give people a voice and share reasons for kids not continuing with the program. 
  • CZ: crew is different from traditional sports. We have outlets if people do not feel comfortable with the program- i.e., meeting with CZ. Surveys critiquing coaches is not beneficial to the program. CZ does not have the bandwidth to put out a survey for 700 athletes.
  • AB: What is the point of the surrey? To highlight issues to solve or there is information out there that is not on the table. 
  • KR: We do not know what the association feels about certain topics, also to figure out barriers. AT: The survey can help facilitate a space for parents to respond with issues.
  • JC: Parents do approach the board with issues because we are on the board. AT: We need a voice as board members.
  • MS: Organized mass of people against the program is not helpful- goal to to unify and move the program forward. There has been past conflict. If people feel they cannot approach the coach that is very disheartening.
  • CZ: we are in the business of growing contributing members of society and learning lessons through sports. Retaliatory conversations have no place in the athletic department. There will be no retributions. 
  • JC: Some parents find it is uncomfortable to have a direct conversation. They just want to be heard. Hence some of the comments on the survey like parent transport. 
  • DR: how will any of these questions benefit actual change? 
  • JC: Questions are a way to lift up the program. It is not intended to cause conflict. 
  • MS: Are the questions misleading for parents to ask for less travel, etc. Our coaching team is outstanding, the greatest risk is turnover. 
  • KR: There was broad support to do a survey in the minutes last month. Why is there now less board support for a survey? JC: There is value in a survey. MS: If there are things that are taking away from the kids’ experience, then we should not be doing it. JC: If we focus on volunteering (on survey)- it can spill over to fundraising. Surveys can help streamline and ease the burden of the coaches. The board recognizes the time put in by the coaches.
  • MS: If coaches get a note- is it asking for something or asking for support.
  • AB: Do we need surveys to answer these or plans to fix these? If we got a survey, I take this as problems happening that the board needs to address. Surveys can begin to sow distrust. KR: This has not been my experience professionally. AB: Would prefer prioritizing goals for the year. I would not feel excited about a survey.
  • MS: parent voice component: regardless of how much coaches are paid, everyone is volunteering. A survey can open a conversation that may not have solutions. 
  • KR: Certainly not the intention. Rather, how are we doing as a board and are there any ways we can improve decisions. We want to hear voices and create solutions for problems. 
  • AB: How do we as parents have a positive experience and assist the board?
  • DR: We are here as board members not parents. We are here to support the program. 
  • MS: The goal is to have a relationship with the parents also. 
  • DW: Travel:  are these decisions made by the coaching team or board? MS: Coaching team. DW: It should be the body of the club. If the coaches come to the board with parent issues- the board has a responsibility to help find a solution. Club boards are about governance, not questions of food or where we row. Parents should be talking to the coaching staff. 
  • EB: The survey question about the fees: it would be helpful for the board to know if parents are willing to pay higher fees.
  • AB: Is there a club that has bylaws to model off of? CZ: Do not have an answer but can look into this. 
  • KR: Should the board establish fees? Is this a coaching issue? 
  • CZ: Other clubs have very fixed fees- crew fees are variable with boats. 
  • MC: Feels there is still a need for a survey for fundraising and board roles. 
  • EB: Can we send a non binding survey?
  • MS: How do we lead in? Blind reflection of experiences? What can we do to improve as a board? What can parents do to make the board more successful with fundraising? E.g., endowment would be a great program goal. We should spend time thinking about the economic decisions that can help our program grow- like replace boats every 7 years, etc. All of the things we have discussed tonight are not helping us. We should be focusing on sustaining the viability of our program, driving costs down, vertical integration with the middle school and community and maybe adult rowing program through parks and rec.
  • EB: Would the endowment belong to the Team Boosters if we start?
  • CZ: Yes. The Team Boosters had to sign off on the boathouse.
  • JC: Can we have a digital suggestion box?
  • SD: you get good things, but you open the door for not productive comments. SD would not recommend it.
  • AT: Can we lead with what type of information and  positive questions?
  • JC: One person could tally the topics and information. Has gotten a lot of feedback on providing something like this.
  • MS: We need to drive towards transparency and not be anonymous with coaches/concerns. 
  • SD: A survey asking about distance is not productive outside of the scope  of parents. Can the board facilitate solutions to the distance we travel? CZ: we cannot organize carpools for liability. KR: We can get a bus and add cost to the program. 
  • DR: We are stewards of the program for a finite period of time. If we ask how much parents are willing to contribute- it will always be minimal amounts. We need to run the program on as little as we can while balancing long term needs. 
  • KR: Would like feedback on survey questions. Only MC gave feedback.
  • MS: MC gave great feedback and noted he should have communicated he was in agreement with him.
  • KC: Is it unusual for the board to send out a survey? CZ: Yes
  • MS: Is it fair to send a note saying we are interested in your experience (as parents) with volunteering and fundraising? 
  • AB: EB do you want very specific information?
  • KC: fundraising committee is brand new, feedback is useful for basic info, not larger issues. 
  • AT: Volunteering angle: we do not even know how many hours are needed, we can use for scope. 
  • DR: Apologies for not providing feedback
  • MS: Proposal to not send survey
  • LG: If the survey is going to focus on volunteering- we need a list of importance on what volunteering is needed/essential, what can be taken out or lower priority. 
  • DR: Assigning volunteers at the beginning of the season?
  • AT: We can keep track with software
  • CZ: Last season, we had someone come from Grand Valley to look at volunteering as a whole post-pandemic. If people are not volunteering then we take away ancillary things. Make it not a money issue but rather a manpower issue.
  • JC: Volunteering at the last minute for parents was difficult- for example battle of the beltline. Earlier planning is always helpful. Also, taking out the dock is a big ask. 
  • MS: Next board meeting: volunteering as a core issue. Ranking need and importance of volunteer positions. 
  • AT: There should be a part of the newsletter for feedback regarding communication, and upcoming volunteer needs. 
  • MS: Can we put a button on the website for direct feedback? MC: yes we can add  
  • Vote taken to not move forward with survey: 7 Yes, 2 No

• Standing Reports: 

• President’s and Head Coach Report (MS):
  •  Combined with above discussion and Treasurer’s report 
  • Noted Midwest is during Prom this year, will discuss ideas related to this

• Vice President’s Report (MC):
  • See Fundraising section 

• Treasurer’s Report (DR):
  • Still needs to connect with MC to track payments coming in. DR requesting to MC if it is possible for each person to have an identifier to track these payment payments
  • Boats are paid
  • MS: needs 4 sweep oars and 2 sculling oars: 2K from maintenance budget
  • Request from coaches and kids to get 2 more erg bikes: $2,200 total
  • Vote taken and motion accepted to purchase oars and erg bikes
  • (KC: we can make fundraising trophies with broken oars)
  • $1276 in repairs and maintenance to date
  • $758 for boathouse maintenance
  • JC: How much is allotted for maintenance? DR: 22K total repair and maintenance. What is flooring cost? MS: No cost- MS and Jeff Olson will take care if it
  • EB: Are we repairing the deck/dock? We voted to fix this last year as it was presented as an urgent matter. MS: acknowledges we voted to fix- DR: this would come out of the capital account. MS: We work towards as little as we can for maintenance unless it becomes dangerous- at this point it is not. JC: Can we replace it with less expensive material? Concrete was quoted around $7K. MS: Yes, that is an option. These concerns were initially proposed by Jason Chapman last year. 

• Recording Secretary’s Report (JR): 
  • No Updates

• Communication Report (EB):
  • Continuing with communication for winter training
  • EB confirming the boathouse folder is opened. MC: Yes that is available to you. 4 Files are password only, 19 are available to the whole board.

• Volunteers Report (JC):
  • Information included in above discussion

• Events (KR):
  • No event work in past month.

• Fundraising (LG):
  • Fundraising packet that MC and KC put together is almost complete, going to send to CZ
  • Spreadsheet of potential corporate sponsors in the works
  • CZ: Meijer is the only company we should not approach as they give to the foundation and should not be approached with ancillary clubs
  • LG: If parents have a personal relationship with certain corporations, fundraising committee would like to ask them to make the connection for charitable giving if comfortable doing so
  • MC: List and creation of the sponsorship packet to say who our market is, what is the formal repeatable process that we can learn this year- and start the next year in the fall season. Working through processes this year so next year can have improvement. 
  • KC: It would be beneficial for our year to be March to March. Focus on Ergathon, something with triathlon, make T-shirts, develop the website and work through to the following March.
  • LG: the year is 2 seasons
  • CZ: The fiscal year with businesses: if we reach out in march or april- sometimes their giving is done for the year. Beneficial to ask post July. 
  • After the first year they can budge. Best is August/September/Oct. 
  • MS: Do the high profile sports that start in the fall play into it? CZ: No, it has to do with their charitable asks.
  • KC: Suggestion for a “Row around the world” or “to the moon” to add to ergathon
  • MS: Will make an oar trophy.
  • JC: Is there an advertised goal? I.e., buy a boat, etc. 
  • MS: need to work on a replacement schedule for things we are fundraising for

• Travel (AT):
  • Spring regattas: just needs to stay updated. 
  • AT Confirming there is no regatta with Culver and Loyola? MS: Yes, there was no space at culver

• Next Board Meeting: , Jan 14th , 7pm Community Center Room 107
• Meeting adjournment at  9:02 pm