Online Services | Commonwealth Sites | Help | Governor

Welcome to the Virginia Department Of Forestry

###### DRAFT MINUTES ######

Meeting of the Board Of Trustees of the
Foundation for Virginia's Natural Resources
Advisory Task Force

Minutes

February 9, 2007, 1:00 p.m.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources
Richmond, Virginia

Board of Trustees Members Present

Advisory Group Members Present

Recorder of the Minutes

Introductions

Everyone present introduced themselves.

Convene Meeting

Jay Gilliam, Chair, called the meeting to order around 11:00 a.m. and welcomed everyone in attendance. He thanked the Department of Forestry, as the primary agency partner, for their administrative support. He expressed appreciation for Spotts Fain providing the meeting space today.

Jay Gilliam, Chairman of the FVNR Board of Trustees opened the meeting by reviewing the legislation that established the Foundation for Virginia's Natural Resources (Code of Virginia § 10.1-2135-2139). Code of Virginia § 10.1-2136(C) states that "The Board shall seek assistance in developing grant criteria and advice on grant priorities and any other appropriate issues from a task force consisting of…" specified agency heads or their designees, and "The Board may request any other agency head, agency employee, or environmental steward to serve on the task force." Chair Gilliam stated that he had asked several people to be involved including Evans Drake with the Virginia Manufacturers Association and the Virginia State Chamber of Commerce; Harry Gregori with Environmental Solutions; and Lee King, head of Development for Ferrum College.

Senator Emmett Hanger was the sponsor patron of this legislation and was interested in the Roundtable for the Shenandoah Basin (The Pure Water Forum that operates out of James Madison) when it came into being in 1996. Senator Hanger could see that the collaborative effort was successful when Coors Brewing Company from Elkton provided financial support for The Pure Water Forum, and the original chairman was an employee of Coors. Coors had taken a leadership role with the Roundtable of the Shenandoah which pleased Senator Hanger; and he hoped that the concept of the Foundation would follow through to other river basins in Virginia.

At that time, state agencies were encouraged to work on watershed strategies similar to tributary strategies which were successful; however, no funding was attached. The following year, there was discussion of how to make the idea of the Foundation successful. In the fall of 2004, Suzan Bulbulkaya, Dennis Treacy (director of DEQ at that time) and Senator Hanger worked on the wording. And during the 2005 General Assembly session, the Foundation was established with only two changes: 1) Agriculture and Forestry should be adequately represented, and 2) the sunset clause was added which states that "Should no funds from any source be received in the Foundation for Virginia's Natural Resources Trust Fund by July 1, 2007, the provisions of this act shall expire."

The collaborative process being implemented on a river basin basis is elemental to the concept behind the Foundation. Specifically, the Foundation was established to:

The FVNR Board of Trustees and the Advisory Task Force must now work together to develop criteria for the types of programs the Foundation will support. Some ideas to consider are:

Ann Regn, Facilitator to Develop Criteria and Operational Procedures

Ms. Regn expressed appreciation for the diversity within the advisory group (experience in seeking funds, evaluating projects and proposals, and developing policy). She distributed an executive summary developed by the Board at their January meeting and a folder of information on criteria development. Ms. Regn asked the group for their thoughts about the Foundation.

Lee Stephens stated that it is important to remember that the Foundation is non-regulatory. The untapped resource in the Commonwealth is the people and their interest in the natural resources. The Foundation will provide a vehicle for them to express that interest from a grant perspective if they have a program they want to push. If big businesses decide they want to support the natural resources of Virginia by making donations to the Foundation, the Foundation would, in turn, recognize them for their advocacy. The Foundation would act as a "broker" between philanthropists and natural resources that need their support; therefore, the Foundation needs to develop iron clad criteria that will ensure a sense of good stewardship.

The group agreed that it is important to have grant criteria in place, even though there are insufficient funds at this time, so that potential donors as well as the General Assembly can see that the Foundation does have specific strategies (goals and priorities) in place when the time comes for evaluating applications for grant proposals.

Chair Gilliam stated that, at their January meeting, the Board voted to partner with the North American Association of Environmental Educators to help them raise money for Virginia teachers to attend the NAAEE Annual Conference in Virginia Beach in November, 2007. Another emerging priority of the Board is the establishment of Outdoor Classrooms throughout the state to help schools provide natural resources learning experiences for students. Richard Louv, author of Last Child in the Woods, will speak at the Environment Virginia Conference in Lexington in April; and FVNR will share exhibit space at the Conference. Ann Regn thanked the Board for their support in partnering with NAAEE.

Ms. Regn distributed and reviewed an outline of criteria development which included important categories of information that interested applicants and donors could be looking for. Also included are questions to consider before developing criteria such as priority funding and funding period. Ms. Regn asked group members to take a minute to think about their priorities and questions they have. She distributed a comment sheet sent to her by Jim Garner (FVNR Board Member and retired State Forester). One of his concerns is to reduce the subjectivity of receiving donations and awarding grants.

Ms. Regn asked the group to have one-on-one discussions and list questions or opinions they may have to add to the questions on the outline or to Mr. Garner's comments. Ms. Regn clarified by giving an example “proposals should encourage collaboration.” Group members can share different levels of experience in determining program priorities.

The meeting went off the record during the one-on-one discussions.

Group members shared their discussions and put their questions/opinions on cards which were collected by Ms. Regn. She will add them to the questions on the outline, and the complete list will be distributed with the minutes of this meeting.

Scott Johnson suggested that a catalog of specific projects be developed and approved so that potential donors can choose project(s) they wish to support.

Catherine Slusser suggested that this would be a great way to approach donors who might want to earmark something for a particular area.

Chair Gilliam listed the priorities identified to date:

Catherine Slusser asked if this could be treated, not as a traditional grant, but market it more like a United Fund or CVC approach where projects come in on whatever basis that get registered in this catalog and have to be screened for certain criteria to get into the catalog. Use the catalog for fund-raising efforts where people can donate to whatever ones they're interested in. Then if the Foundation has its own money, they could have an additional set of criteria for picking which of those they will pick for the Foundation to fund that are already in their own catalog, elaborating on the catalog idea but taking that as the starting point for a whole process. Once the catalog is built and prescreened to a certain standard, the evaluation criteria and results could be developed later. This would be a powerful list to go back to General Assembly, corporations, etc.

Lee Stephens asked Ron Jenkins if DOF could provide a mapping system based on FVNR's river basin orientation to give people the ability to click on a map of Virginia, choose their area of interest and view projects available with detail regarding those projects.

Ron Jenkins stated that this is a timely request since there was a GIS day in the General Assembly building recently. A number of agencies were there. Between DOF, DEQ and DCR, something could be provided. DOF has the engine. DEQ has another, more comprehensive approach--an effort in the Bay area to pull together various layers from a variety of agencies (DOF, DGIF, non-profit organizations) for a one-stop portal online to view components of the Bay area which would include attributes of a particular segment, such as forestry. This would basically be more of a list than multiple layers. Mr. Jenkins suggested that John Scrivani with DOF could provide more information on developing this mapping system.

Lee Stephens stated that, if money was available, the agencies could collaborate (create their own roundtable) which would help the Foundation better sell the opportunities to the marketplace.

Catherine Slusser suggested that someone may volunteer to put this mapping system together for the PR value.

Jay Gilliam stated that one of the Virginia Watersheds Alliance's priorities is to do something similar so each roundtable can demonstrate their goals and roles.

Russ Baxter stated that the downside is that people may be discouraged if, over time, they put proposals together and never get funding. However, the catalog idea gives a twist on the theme that might set the Foundation apart from traditional grant makers. This might give a little different identity that may be helpful during the long-term. The benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

Catherine Slusser stated that being on that list would give local organizations a boost when they do their own fund raising since they would be approved by the Foundation.

Suzan Bulbulkaya suggested that FVNR could tie projects into existing state priorities such as the Chesapeake 2000 agreement which has educational components as well as pollution reduction along with tributary strategies. She encouraged the group to think about reporting results--the annual report. Keep measurable items in mind when coming up with requirements. Think about how funds will be leveraged--federal and state. Through the Chesapeake Bay Program, state priorities are funded at various levels of enthusiasm.

Jay Gilliam asked the group to think about the fact that FVNR is a body politic and, therefore, similar to a municipality or state agency, which prevents FVNR from making application for certain sources of support. Should FVNR form and establish a parallel non-profit to the state foundation? Pros and cons need to be discussed. Is that something the Foundation needs to do in order to be as effective as possible? FVNR is eliminated from going to many Foundations because their bylaws say they can only give to a non-profit or 501(c)3. That eliminates a huge potential source of support. Other advantages might be, when FVNR has a staff person, could that person be hired by a non-profit side and avoid some obstacles in having an additional state employee? What are the pros and cons of that? He asked the group to help think that process through.

Catherine Slusser stated that, if FVNR takes the catalog approach, it could get completely around that fund-raising issue because the grantor could be giving the grants directly to the non-profit. FVNR is just the broker. The check would be written to the non-profit, not the Foundation. The Foundation could also take donations. Ann Regn suggested that, if there is a state agency project, they may want to receive the funds to match it to a federal grant. Eleanor Brown stated that there could be two pots of money--the money that is funded through the catalog and the money that is funded directly to the organization from the non-profit. Ann Regn added that the state agency would need to find a partner.

“Homework Assignment”

Ms. Regn distributed a case study as part of the group's homework which is an idea for a project from a state agency. She asked the group to determine what kind of direction they would give for this pre-proposal to the Foundation. What information would be included in the catalog to justify this as a good project; and who would this project be assigned to for technical review? What would be the process? Is this project technically feasible? Is this a sound use of money? What are the preliminary questions? What is the target message? What results will come out of this project? Is this a proposal for one kit or a variety of different kits on different subjects? What is in the kit? What is the purpose/goal of this project? There might be different questions for educational projects than for stream monitoring. For example, Outdoor classrooms would ask about a maintenance plan and teacher training.

There was further discussion regarding the screening process. A panel from different areas of expertise would be assigned so that, based on their knowledge, they could look at the proposal and see what's missing. Applicants would need to develop a paragraph that is easily read in the catalog. An instrument is needed that really directs what is written, to make it succinct, in 100 words or less--an on-line form/template for example.

In the above case scenario, collaboration, partnership, is needed to define needs of the school, who the targeted audience is, would the audience respond to this project? Where possible quantify; come up with a measure for results. Chair Gilliam stated that, when a specific list of criteria is developed, then it is hoped that a goal of the state agency would apply to environmental education, pollution prevention, or citizen monitoring. A training component could/should also be included. Who would provide that training? Non-profit proposals could be reviewed and tweaked by state agencies. The Foundation would have to ensure that projects fit their catalog criteria.

Chair Gilliam stated that job descriptions need to be developed for Board members so that, when projects are submitted from a specific river basin, the Board member from that river basin would be the first point of contact. Then the Board member would consult the state agency with expertise in the area of the request.

Russ Baxter recommended that the Board first decide how the review process is going to work. Board members should not be reviewers but decision makers. Volunteers from non-profits could be used to review proposals.

FVNR could conduct an annual workshop to provide instruction on how to write up pre-proposals.

Ann Regn asked the group to complete their homework assignment. Look at the questions generated, the criteria distributed and think about the pre-proposal catalog and how it might work from an agency standpoint (when and how to receive them and how to review them. etc.). Consider the following:

  1. Programmatic priorities (including collaboration with other agencies)
  2. Recommendations for the process (see operational considerations)

Chair Gilliam asked Ms. Regn to appoint a three-person committee to format the final process/criteria document. Ms. Regn asked Susan Bulbulkaya and Carol Heiser to work with her on this.

The Advisory Task Force will meet again within the next month--date and location to be announced--with a goal to finalize a draft proposal to be presented to the Board of Trustees for their approval at their next official meeting.

NOTE: Tapes of Board of Trustees and Advisory Task Force meetings are on file in the Department of Forestry Central Office.

Last modified: Friday, 07-Mar-2008 14:13:43 EST