###### DRAFT MINUTES ######
Meeting of the Board Of Trustees of the
Foundation for Virginia's Natural Resources
Advisory Task Force
Minutes
March 7, 2007, 1:30 p.m.
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries
Richmond, Virginia
Board of Trustees Members Present
- Jay Gilliam, Chair, Upper James River Basin
- Lee Stephens, Vice-Chair, York River Basin
Advisory Group Members Present
- Suzie Gilley, VDGIF
- Ellen Powell, VDOF
- Scott Johnson, VDACS
- Ann Regn, VOEE/DEQ
- Nancy Bell, VMNH
Recorder of the Minutes
- Brenda Taylor, VDOF
Ann Regn, Facilitator to Develop Criteria and Operational Procedures
Ms. Regn welcomed everyone to the meeting and introduced new attendees.
Minutes, comments and questions from note cards, and one-on-one questions/opinions from the February 9, 2007, meeting were previously emailed to Trustees and Advisors from Chair Gilliam. Also included in that email was a draft Memorandum of Understanding between FVNR and NAAEE for which Chair Gilliam asked for approval or suggestions for changes.
At the February 9 meeting, Ms. Regn asked the group to think about the questions that were generated. She asked today's group to consider the programmatic priorities (including collaboration with other agencies) and recommendations for the process (operational considerations).
A draft will be developed for presentation at the FVNR Board of Trustees meeting on April 6 to include:
- Program Description (includes summary of the application process)
- Application Form
- Scoring Criteria (how decisions get made)
Ms. Regn distributed a draft introductory/summary description of what would be found on the FVNR web site for everyone's review and asked for comments. Included in this summary are the following:
- Introduction
- Priority Areas for Funding Assistance
- Criteria for Funding
- Funding Guidelines and FAQS
- Application Procedures
Ms. Regn asked the group to identify priorities for promoting stewardship for environmental education, pollution prevention and citizen monitoring.
Each area was reviewed and suggestions were made for changes. Chair Gilliam asked that a bullet be added as follows:
- Link natural resources and historical and cultural resources
- Promote programs that foster a better understanding by the general public about agriculture (educate farmers about the value of BMP's and the general public about the value of agriculture and forestry to the state)
- Promote projects that create meaningful opportunities for interested citizens to participate.
There was further discussion of whether to be specific or generalize the priorities under environmental education, pollution prevention and citizen monitoring. Comments were as follows:
- Scoring criteria might be the place to emphasize this.
- Assuming funds will be available, some applications could be graded strictly by a score sheet; however, if someone wanted to fund an approved project, it wouldn't have to compete with other projects.
- FVNR could be a conduit for projects that corporations wish to fund--the money flowing from the corporation through FVNR and to the project applicant.
- The checklist and scoring criteria would be used if schools (K-12) are competing against one another.
Chair Gilliam expressed his opinion that a lot of environmental natural resource issues are going to be driven by the global warming controversy in the future. He suggested that funding opportunities be offered to schools or civic groups that want to conduct education on climate change issues since climate change is linked with conservation in general--energy, water, etc. Ms. Regn stated that, hopefully, this process would give that flexibility.
General Criteria
Ms. Regn led a discussion of the two levels of criteria:
- general areas and
- how to rank projects.
Ms. Bell suggested prioritizing projects according to how many checkmarks they receive and what's being proposed.
Ms. Regn presented a tiered approach:
- Basic criteria
- Technical review
- Panel review by state agencies
Mr. Stephens asked if metrics could be established to define tangible benefits such as (# acres, # larvae, etc.). He stressed the importance of investing in projects that are going to be successful; have a plan for achieving long-term program sustainability. Mr. Johnson stated that some projects would be short term and not all projects could be measured in this way. Ms. Regn asked the group to think about this, and she would return to this issue later.
Chair Gilliam stated that, when FVNR got started, Senator Hanger was particularly pleased and anxious to assist in the watershed planning process. He loved what the Pure Water Forum was doing in the Shenandoah and the success that they were having. He is supportive of FVNR promoting collaboration. The reason FVNR is set up with one board member from each river basin is that Senator Hanger and Dennis Treacy felt that this was a good way to work. So, whatever we end up with, hopefully, will promote and reflect supporting that concept.
Suggestions were that the criteria checkmark stating "provides an opportunity for cooperation among diverse groups" could be changed to "encourages an opportunity for collaboration between diverse groups implemented on a river basin basis." The checkmark stating "Utilizes existing resources and expertise from local businesses, public agencies, academic institutions, and community organizations" could be moved up in priority. Ms. Regn asked if checkmarks should be rated with a point system. It was agreed it would be hard to say one criterion was more important than another.
Catalog: Ms. Regn stated that the catalog approach was a good way to attract supporters. Mr. Stephens passed around a "Catalogue for Philanthropy" from the River Counties Community Foundation in the northern neck area of Virginia. This "Catalogue," which could be used as a sample, lists organizations that their Foundation supports. Discussion ensued regarding organizing the catalog in several ways (alphabetically by groups, by resource, by topic, by watershed); or if placed on-line, it could be a totally searchable database that would assist potential donors in choosing projects they wish to support.
Chair Gilliam described other potential sources of support for FVNR including memorials, illustrations, etc. Marketing will be tied in with operational procedures and criteria.
Chair Gilliam suggested a structured annual review/re-evaluation of criteria to make any changes necessary. This would allow flexibility for improvement and is a fundamental element of the process.
Mr. Stephens suggested that a part of one of the quarterly BOT meetings could be used to focus on the grant criteria.
Operations
Ms. Regn stated that many of the note card questions generated from the February meeting had to do with the process. Others dealt with funding guidelines (i.e., a proposal from the catalog could be negotiated with the funder and project committee). Other questions were informational in nature regarding evaluating projects.
Ms. Regn asked the group to discuss creating an on-line catalog and how it would work after applications are received. Chair Gilliam stated that the Board had approved a process in keeping with their mission and goals; and if a project is approved for the catalog, donations would actively and passively be sought to fund the project. Ms. Regn suggested that there is a need for a non-Board member contact person or liaison person to tweak and negotiate the project (an advocate, a technical expert).
Mr. Johnson suggested that a list of contact people be developed for each agency depending upon the nature of the project. This would be someone to contact for an opinion. When projects are submitted, there could be a sub-committee of the Board to review applications. The sub-committee could make comments/questions and send back projects that are not ready for consideration. The sub-committee would also recommend an agency mentor that could be contacted to answer questions and improve their application. The sub-committee would determine the strongest applications to present to the Board for consideration.
Ms. Powell asked how agency liaisons would be chosen or appointed in respect to the draw on staff time. Agency buy-in would be necessary.
Chair Gilliam stated that a local roundtable person (within the river basin of the proposed project) could act as a shepherd for projects. FVNR could, in turn, potentially provide resources for salary, office expenses and meeting costs of the roundtable. A documentation of effectiveness or report would be effective to say, "Here's what you got for your dollars." And it would benefit them to help because the project is in their region.
Ms. Regn stressed the importance of also having an agency contact for communication purposes.
Ms. Regn discussed trouble-shooting issues. Mr. Stephens recommended a process that parallels with the General Assembly process in evaluating applications.
Chair Gilliam raised the idea of asking each of the roundtables of Virginia to submit five potential projects (with budgets) based on the Foundation's criteria for environmental education, pollution prevention and citizen monitoring. This would promote collaboration and would provide projects to begin development of the catalog.
- A deadline could be set for January 1, 2008, for receiving project ideas.
- FVNR would review them to determine if they meet the criteria.
- Projects would be approved/disapproved with the understanding that there is no guarantee that a project will be funded; however, FVNR will try to find funding for approved projects.
- If the project addresses FVNR criteria, it would be reviewed by the state agency designee.
- The project would be funded out of FVNR endowment or a sponsor/donor found to underwrite the project.
Discussion followed regarding a schedule for project submittals and Board approvals for updates to the catalog. Potential funders could be notified when updates are made to the catalog.
Various protocols for receiving projects were discussed as follows:
- Roundtables approve proposals for projects.
- More than one endorsement needed (roundtable and/or regional environmental education team and/or state agency).
- Trustees go to pure water forum, soil and water group, etc., for projects. Trustees stay involved other than attending quarterly meetings.
- FVNR accepts proposals then sends out for review by roundtables or others so as not to discourage people by telling them to make their pitch to roundtable first.
Comments:
- Projects would be evaluated on merit (non-competitive process).
- Mentors could be used to work with applicants to strengthen their proposals for future submittals.
- Need someone knowledgeable to negotiate or translate the projects to funders without making the process burdensome to anyone.
- If multiple, potential sources of support can be found, projects could be advertised for matching funds.
- Principle off endowment could be used for funding projects.
- Teaming up is a great idea (for example, $300 from PTA, $300 from FVNR, $300 from another source) to fund one project.
- Need person skilled at marketing.
- Diversifying sources of support is important.
Chair Gilliam expressed hopefulness for when he makes contacts with potential donors in partnership with NAAEE, that he can sell FVNR for possible endowments.
After discussion of FVNR's funding of state agency projects, Chair Gilliam suggested that one of the criteria should be, "Does it advance the goals of the state agencies within the Secretariats of Natural Resources and Agriculture and Forestry?" Mr. Stephens cautioned that FVNR should not involve itself with the state's regulatory mode. Only non-regulatory projects should be supported (i.e., educate farmers and public on why best management practices are necessary). Chair Gilliam suggested that FVNR's web site should refer to Article 11.
After much discussion, the group agreed to the following:
- Guidelines need to be in place for the Board to work with now (universal criteria; a starting point).
- Grant criteria will be a work in progress for approximately the next 18 months before ready to submit to the public. Continue to work on performance metrics.
- Work with contributors to get their help in refining grant criteria into a final form.
- In the meantime, continue to build on the web site with cataloging, brokering, etc.
- By December 2007 have something good enough to present to General Assembly to ask them to help FVNR move forward.
- By 2008 General Assembly, have something tangible to report. For example, partnering with NAAEE to assist 130 VA teachers to attend the conference; or a 2008 goal for FVNR is to find support for one new outdoor classroom in each of the 13 river basins in Virginia; with strategies for completing this goal; with emphasis on how FVNR has supported agriculture and forestry and state-wide programs like Save our Streams, the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, or the VA Museum of Natural History--all documented on the FVNR web site.
- Hold a public event with a cross-section of experts and funders to include legislators, grant applicants, roundtables, businesses, etc., to explain the basic program, ask for their input re their needs, priorities. Most big corporations have a staff person that works in community affairs who could assist which would make them feel they are part of the process; they would buy in. This would require a facilitator or meeting coordinator (for example, Dennis Treacy, former DEQ Director and presently head of environmental issues at Smithfield Foods).
- Conduct a workshop at VA Environment 2008.
Other ideas:
- Have a temperature thermometer on-line with donors' names listed (such as United Way).
- Ask those teachers, who FVNR assisted to go to the NAAEE Conference, to attend a city council or civic meeting to explain what they learned at the conference and educate them about the need for the community to provide opportunities such as this for teachers.
The next meeting of the Advisory Task Force will be held on Wednesday, March 28, 2007, from 12:00 Noon - 3:00 p.m. at the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries in Richmond. At this meeting, the Advisory Task Force will refine and wordsmith an initial set of principles that will then be sent to the Board of Trustees for their review before the BOT meeting on April 6. An on-line application and metrics score sheet will also be developed for review. A sample online Application for Funding Assistance was distributed for use as homework. Advisors are asked to focus on what is really important to each of them. Ms. Regn is developing a document which includes broad categories of programmatic priorities which she will send to the Advisory Group before the March 28 meeting. Chair Gilliam and Mr. Stephens will present an overview to the Board of Trustees at the April 6 meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m.
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 14:13:44 EST

