FIRST UNITARIAN SOCIETY
PARISH MEETING
MINUTES
MADISON, WI
May 7, 2006
ATTENDANCE
109 members signed the attendance lists.
CALL TO ORDER
First Unitarian Society President Alan Knox called the meeting to order at time 1:30 p.m.
Michael Schuler provided opening remarks reminding us of our common bond and community..
Alan Knox described the vision for the Congregation. This is what we use to guide us and to serve as our beacon as we work through our different opinions and try to build our spiritual community into a stronger one.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
- The minutes from the October 16, 2005 and February 5, 2006 Parish meetings were introduced.
- It was MOVED by David Creswell and seconded by Jim Christensen to approve minutes. The motion CARRIED.
NOMINATIONS AND ELECTIONS
- The slate of nominations introduced by Mary Bergen.
- Nancy Vedder Shults MOVED to approve the slate and Chris Glueck seconded the motions. The motion CARRIED.
Suzie DeBeer presented a banner that has been given to the Society by the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee because 25-40% of congregation has supported the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee.
TREASURER’S REPORT
The Treasurer’s report was presented by Jim Christensen, the preceding treasurer, on behalf of Jim Jaeger, the current acting treasurer because Jim Jaeger’s voice is non-existent. Jim Christensen described the budget for the next fiscal year that has been prepared and approved by the Board. We have struggled with our current year’s budget, which will balance despite a computational error that we were saddled with this year that created a deficit. The revenue for the current year does not include our special outreach offertory that amounts to about $21,000 for the year. As we have prepared the budget for the forthcoming year, we have altered our projections to reduce unrealistically optimistic assumptions on revenues. In other words, we have been more conservative in our revenue projections. We are determined to make this a balanced budget now that we have the anomaly of the current year’s error behind us. For the coming year, we reduced expenses by $40,000 and we increased revenues by only $2000, which is reasonable given our membership growth. We will watch both items carefully and will adjust the new budget as needed in July. The new member pledging initiative and the start of construction are uncertainties with which we have had to cope. Our pledge median increased substantially from $600 to $840 so we believe we are headed in the right direction and are making progress in getting commitment by our members to balance our budget and to support our initiatives.
Bob Dott asked why certain funds are not in the budget. We are currently doing fund accounting and the expenses that Bob asked about do not appear in a standard operating budget in that method of accounting.
Elizabeth Barrett asked about the new member pledge initiative. The canvass does not include new members according to tradition. We have tried to involve new members earlier in the process. This is one change that we have started making in the past year that should help increase our revenues.
Anne Gullickson asked about the trend for the 100 non pledging units. This number has been a consistent number for years. There are valid reasons why some of these people do not pledge and in some other cases it is a matter of working with the members to obtains pledges and to educate them on the expenses we have.
Laurie Joiner asked about the 102 pledging units at the 3% of income or higher level. That number is a self-reported number by the people pledging and we rely on their honesty.
There was a question about what the “other income” category includes. It includes Cabaret income this year along with some other smaller miscellaneous income items.
It was MOVED by Bob Dott and seconded to approve the budget as presented. The motion CARRIED.
PRESIDENT’S REMARKS AND FEASIBILITY STUDY SUMMARY
Alan Knox gave the President’s remarks. He met last night with some new attendees. They like what they see at First Unitarian Society. But they expressed concerns about parking, auditorium space and crowding in the loggia. They felt “part of the problem.” Alan then discussed the need to look at possible new facilities. A facilities study was done. It would take $10 million from the congregation to get it done (the total project estimated cost is $15 million). The interviews with potential donors led to the conclusion that the people liked the plans but probably only $4.5 million could be raised.
Alan discussed the timeline for plan revisions and a capital campaign in the Fall. At this point we can and should only expect to raise $4.5 million from the congregation in a capital campaign. However this is a fairly firm figure and even if the plans are scaled back we may expect to raise about that amount. So we need to revise our plans with that in mind and present them to the parish in September, 2006 and we should commence a capital fund drive in the fall of 2006.
The floor was opened for general questions, either orally or written.
There was a question asking if we raised $4.5 million and that is half of $10 million then didn’t we reach our goal? The consultant said we could expect to raise double what the interviewed persons say they will contribute. Alan explained that the interviews indicated we could expect $2 million in commitments from the people interviewed. The $2 million commitment level is what led to the $4.5 million total estimate that we could raise.
Donna Hartshorne was concerned about having only pledges and not cash to start the project. Alan explained that a construction loan is built into the budget and we will have the cash through early donations and through the construction loan if we proceed. It will not be started with no cash on hand.
Claire Box expressed a concern about whether or not we are giving up a sustainable building if we have to scale back our plans. Alan explained that those features are built in to the plans and it is expected that even scaled back plans will include sustainability. The architectural firm we are using is known for its sustainable buildings. The specifics of how it will be done are up to the architects.
The total $7 million project budget at this time includes what we can raise and what we will borrow. The construction financing is based on our belief that we need to do something even if we don’t know how much we can exactly raise.
PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT RESOLUTIONS
1. It is MOVED that we approve authorization for a revised master plan to be prepared during the Summer of 2006 based on funding projections from the project feasibility study to be presented for action at a September 2006 Parish Meeting, with a spending limit of $145,000 to pay for the plan revisions as we obtain construction financing for such revisions.
The motion CARRIED by the following margin:
In Favor - 83
Against - 3
Abstained - 4
2. It is MOVED Jane Clay and seconded by Pat Becker that we approve authorization for use of construction financing and early contributions for capital campaign improvements to accomplish urgent Historic Meeting House preservation projects (such as Auditorium floor repair, lighting and ventilation needs) during the Summer and Fall of 2006, as the Board concludes that these projects are technically feasible and do not conflict with important program activities in the available time period, up to a spending limit of $250,000.
Nancy Vedder Shults asked what is meant by the “technically feasible and does not conflict” language. Our timing is to get the critical work done during period when there is no service in the auditorium in summer so we can avoid disrupting services in the auditorium. Smaller projects could work around that period. Also we will need time to gather bids and decide what to do that is within our approved budget.
Vicky Jones asked if this is premature when other construction will be done soon. The answer is that the work being contemplated must be done to avoid emergency problems and it should not conflict with construction done at a later time. It is work for which we have a commitment to get it done.
Lee Hansen said he is concerned that there is a lack of will to get this done.
The motion CARRIED by the following margin:
In Favor - 103
Against - 0
Abstained - 0
CLOSING
Alan referred to the Annual Report mailing that was sent to all members for all of the accomplishments of the councils, the staff and the members over the past year. He expressed his appreciation for all of the work that was done by everyone in Society who has contributed to our valuable work. Alan encouraged more involvement by even more people in the coming year. We should all become “trim tabs” that help steer the larger ship and the world.
Thank you to volunteers who made this meeting possible and to Alan for a job well done this past year.
It was MOVED to adjourn. The motion CARRIED.
EXHIBITS
- Parish minutes from 10/16/2005
- Parish minutes from 2/5/2006
- Slate of nominations
- Treasurer’s report including operating budget
- Summary of facilities feasibility study
- Facilities timeline
- Board resolution to authorize up to $110,000 for revised master master plan
- Board resolution to authorize up to $250,000 for historic meeting house preservation
- Friends of the Meeting House Annual Report
