Reed College Alumni Association Past Presidents’ Working Group 9/26-9/27/2008
Present: Rachel Hall Luft ’95 (current president) Pat Pruyne ‘83 Richard Cuthbert ‘73 Michael Redden ‘76 David Perry ‘73 Holly Gudmundson Leighton ‘78 Leslie Vickers Jones ‘83 Gwen Lewis ‘65 Tony Fisher ‘80 John Sheehy ‘82 Moshe Lenske ‘50 Jan Kurtz, Director of Development Mike Teskey, Director of Alumni & Parent Relations
9/27 discussions
What is the “next big thing” for the Alumni Association?
Richard: Current “big thing” is Oral History project. Past big things include “nationalization” of the Alumni Association, and improving student life and diversity at Reed.
After the Centennial, should the next big thing be to integrate alumni more actively into development efforts? Are we ready to “own” it ? What are the consequences? Could the Alumni association be the conduit for alumni to get involved in development?
Another goal might be to increase success of Reunions – how to measure? Attendance? Rachel brought up how Reunions might also focus on how Reed fits into the larger community.
Jan Kurtz offered information about the Reed endowment, which generated discussion about why alumni should give. Following on that, the group discussed how to create a new model of engagement between alumni and current students, especially juniors and seniors. Tony Fisher indicated that his five-minute ‘stump speech’ to the graduates at rehearsal doesn’t really engage them. Our goal, he continued, should be to make being a Reed alumna/us more fun and more fulfilling. Tony also reflected on the fact that former president Steve Koblik thought of the Alumni Association as the “conscience of the college” and a sort of compass to help keep the college on track.
The discussion turned again to alumni as mentors, and the “sister class” idea came up again, with a suggestion to have designated mentors for particular majors. Tony Fisher used the metaphor of “imprinting” to express the idea that during their time at Reed, students have only the faculty to imprint on. Creating a stronger connection between alumni and students might allow students to have a more realistic model. The suggestion was also made to use the chapters as a focal point for mentoring activities.
John Sheehy then joined the group to present his idea (along with Konrad Alt ’81) for the “next big thing.” John introduced this idea by reminding the group that engagement was the primary purpose of the Alumni Association, and that the Oral History project was a good example of a project that had engaged alumni from across disciplines and class years. John went on to inform us that there has been little or no increase in alumni participation in giving to the college in the past several years, which he interprets to mean that the engagement model did not have the desired effect. Mike Teskey reminded John that engagement is a first step to giving, not an end in itself. Jan Kurtz indicated that the core donor group (those who have donated for the past five years) is growing and that the average gift is increasing.
John proposed that the relationship between the alumni association and the college is rocky; that the alumni need to take ownership of the problem of alumni participation in giving and change the culture of giving at Reed. He stressed that the alumni association is not and should not be the primary fundraising body, but he offered as the Oral History Committee as a model for alumni participation in the fundraising process – a standing committee with alumni board oversight, providing a well-coordinated fundraising effort in concert with development. He also suggested tapping into alumni who are professional fundraisers to help, much like the OHC has done with history professionals. John went on to talk about developing a challenge that creates community: a peer-based fundraising effort that will appeal to the emotional connection and allegiance to Reed.
As an aside, Moshe Lenske asked why the fundraising program is segmented the way it is, creating ‘artificial’ categories of donors. He feels that since Reed students are not categorized by their grades, why should they be by the amount of money they give?
John’s goal is to mobilize the alumni body toward the next step – helping to create a challenge to alumni to make Reed completely need-blind in its admissions policy. To do this, $80 million would have to be raised. John proposed a ten-year plan, starting in 2011.
Many had questions about Reed’s current Centennial campaign, and Jan Kurtz informed us that so far, $107 million has been raised, out of a goal of $200 million. This campaign is designed to lift institutional capacity; the public phase will begin in June 2009, and the campaign will conclude in December 2012. The themes of the campaign are: community, inquiry, and endurance.
John outlined his proposed timeline for the alumni effort for facilitating need-blind admission: 2008-2009 – planning; 2009 – proposal; 2010 – develop committee leadership and structure; 2011 – launch.
Several of the group members had questions and/or comments about John’s proposal.
Richard Cuthbert asked what this group was supposed to do today, and how this proposal would fit into the Alumni Association. He also wondered what the long-range, compelling goals were.
Tony Fisher outlined two decisions that he felt need to be addressed: What is the relationship of this project to the Alumni Association strategic plan, and do we want to bring fundraising back in to the AA mission? And if the answer to the second question is yes, how do we start that process?
Several members of the group wondered if this proposed change would change the culture of Reed alumni, and if we wanted to do that? John Sheehy asserted that we would be taking the “ask” away from the college, and putting it in the hands of the alumni.
Konrad’s goal is to create a “blue chip” committee to shepherd this project, and take the process through the Alumni Association, the college, the board of trustees, and the alumni trustees.
David Perry stated that he did not like John’s proposal, and feels that this group was “set up”. He asked for specific numbers, which John could not provide at this time. Gwen Lewis suggested forming a “study group” first, in order to determine if this project is in the Alumni Association’s best interest. Tony Fisher reminded the group that we don’t have any “official” standing except as an ad hoc advisory board. He outlined the process he felt we should go through to vet this idea: 1) case statement of “why”; 2) ideas on how; 3) anticipate probable questions and objections; 4) start with the current Executive Committee. Rachel Luft indicated that the EC will discuss this proposal.
Richard Cuthbert asserted that the entire Alumni Association should be informed in one way or another that this process is starting. We should be very clear on what it is that this change in the AA represents and the positioning of this project is key.
David Perry reiterated that we still need concrete data, and wondered how this project fits strategically. Tony Fisher opined that discussions like this one moves ideas forward, and Richard Cuthbert reiterated that process and specification are critical. When asked about giving rates, Jan Kurtz replied that 18% of Reed alumni have never given money, and that 29% have given in the past fiscal year.
Holly Leighton expressed mixed feelings about the project. She indicated that she had been involved in the Annual Fund after her board tenure, but was not sure that fundraising belonged in the everyday activities of the Alumni Association.
David Perry suggested that perhaps the Oral History Project did not need to end after the Centennial, and offered some ideas on how to continue it.
1 comment:
Reed College Alumni Association
Past Presidents’ Working Group
9/26-9/27/2008
Present:
Rachel Hall Luft ’95 (current president)
Pat Pruyne ‘83
Richard Cuthbert ‘73
Michael Redden ‘76
David Perry ‘73
Holly Gudmundson Leighton ‘78
Leslie Vickers Jones ‘83
Gwen Lewis ‘65
Tony Fisher ‘80
John Sheehy ‘82
Moshe Lenske ‘50
Jan Kurtz, Director of Development
Mike Teskey, Director of Alumni & Parent Relations
9/27 discussions
What is the “next big thing” for the Alumni Association?
Richard: Current “big thing” is Oral History project. Past big things include “nationalization” of the Alumni Association, and improving student life and diversity at Reed.
After the Centennial, should the next big thing be to integrate alumni more actively into development efforts? Are we ready to “own” it ? What are the consequences? Could the Alumni association be the conduit for alumni to get involved in development?
Another goal might be to increase success of Reunions – how to measure? Attendance? Rachel brought up how Reunions might also focus on how Reed fits into the larger community.
Jan Kurtz offered information about the Reed endowment, which generated discussion about why alumni should give. Following on that, the group discussed how to create a new model of engagement between alumni and current students, especially juniors and seniors. Tony Fisher indicated that his five-minute ‘stump speech’ to the graduates at rehearsal doesn’t really engage them. Our goal, he continued, should be to make being a Reed alumna/us more fun and more fulfilling. Tony also reflected on the fact that former president Steve Koblik thought of the Alumni Association as the “conscience of the college” and a sort of compass to help keep the college on track.
The discussion turned again to alumni as mentors, and the “sister class” idea came up again, with a suggestion to have designated mentors for particular majors. Tony Fisher used the metaphor of “imprinting” to express the idea that during their time at Reed, students have only the faculty to imprint on. Creating a stronger connection between alumni and students might allow students to have a more realistic model. The suggestion was also made to use the chapters as a focal point for mentoring activities.
John Sheehy then joined the group to present his idea (along with Konrad Alt ’81) for the “next big thing.” John introduced this idea by reminding the group that engagement was the primary purpose of the Alumni Association, and that the Oral History project was a good example of a project that had engaged alumni from across disciplines and class years. John went on to inform us that there has been little or no increase in alumni participation in giving to the college in the past several years, which he interprets to mean that the engagement model did not have the desired effect. Mike Teskey reminded John that engagement is a first step to giving, not an end in itself. Jan Kurtz indicated that the core donor group (those who have donated for the past five years) is growing and that the average gift is increasing.
John proposed that the relationship between the alumni association and the college is rocky; that the alumni need to take ownership of the problem of alumni participation in giving and change the culture of giving at Reed. He stressed that the alumni association is not and should not be the primary fundraising body, but he offered as the Oral History Committee as a model for alumni participation in the fundraising process – a standing committee with alumni board oversight, providing a well-coordinated fundraising effort in concert with development. He also suggested tapping into alumni who are professional fundraisers to help, much like the OHC has done with history professionals. John went on to talk about developing a challenge that creates community: a peer-based fundraising effort that will appeal to the emotional connection and allegiance to Reed.
As an aside, Moshe Lenske asked why the fundraising program is segmented the way it is, creating ‘artificial’ categories of donors. He feels that since Reed students are not categorized by their grades, why should they be by the amount of money they give?
John’s goal is to mobilize the alumni body toward the next step – helping to create a challenge to alumni to make Reed completely need-blind in its admissions policy. To do this, $80 million would have to be raised. John proposed a ten-year plan, starting in 2011.
Many had questions about Reed’s current Centennial campaign, and Jan Kurtz informed us that so far, $107 million has been raised, out of a goal of $200 million. This campaign is designed to lift institutional capacity; the public phase will begin in June 2009, and the campaign will conclude in December 2012. The themes of the campaign are: community, inquiry, and endurance.
John outlined his proposed timeline for the alumni effort for facilitating need-blind admission: 2008-2009 – planning; 2009 – proposal; 2010 – develop committee leadership and structure; 2011 – launch.
Several of the group members had questions and/or comments about John’s proposal.
Richard Cuthbert asked what this group was supposed to do today, and how this proposal would fit into the Alumni Association. He also wondered what the long-range, compelling goals were.
Tony Fisher outlined two decisions that he felt need to be addressed: What is the relationship of this project to the Alumni Association strategic plan, and do we want to bring fundraising back in to the AA mission? And if the answer to the second question is yes, how do we start that process?
Several members of the group wondered if this proposed change would change the culture of Reed alumni, and if we wanted to do that? John Sheehy asserted that we would be taking the “ask” away from the college, and putting it in the hands of the alumni.
Konrad’s goal is to create a “blue chip” committee to shepherd this project, and take the process through the Alumni Association, the college, the board of trustees, and the alumni trustees.
David Perry stated that he did not like John’s proposal, and feels that this group was “set up”. He asked for specific numbers, which John could not provide at this time. Gwen Lewis suggested forming a “study group” first, in order to determine if this project is in the Alumni Association’s best interest. Tony Fisher reminded the group that we don’t have any “official” standing except as an ad hoc advisory board. He outlined the process he felt we should go through to vet this idea: 1) case statement of “why”; 2) ideas on how; 3) anticipate probable questions and objections; 4) start with the current Executive Committee. Rachel Luft indicated that the EC will discuss this proposal.
Richard Cuthbert asserted that the entire Alumni Association should be informed in one way or another that this process is starting. We should be very clear on what it is that this change in the AA represents and the positioning of this project is key.
David Perry reiterated that we still need concrete data, and wondered how this project fits strategically. Tony Fisher opined that discussions like this one moves ideas forward, and Richard Cuthbert reiterated that process and specification are critical.
When asked about giving rates, Jan Kurtz replied that 18% of Reed alumni have never given money, and that 29% have given in the past fiscal year.
Holly Leighton expressed mixed feelings about the project. She indicated that she had been involved in the Annual Fund after her board tenure, but was not sure that fundraising belonged in the everyday activities of the Alumni Association.
David Perry suggested that perhaps the Oral History Project did not need to end after the Centennial, and offered some ideas on how to continue it.
Post a Comment