Nova Scotia Agricultural College

Foundation Board Meeting

 Thursday, June 17, 2004 10:30am.              Presidents’ Boardroom

 1.       Approval of Agenda 

On motion by S. Porter/L. Ells, the agenda for the meeting was approved as circulated. 

2.       Approval of Minutes -Dec 18, 2003 

Chairman Huggard asked how the board wanted the minutes dealt with. It was agreed that the secretary could highlight them. On a motion by P. Hicks/S. Porter they were approved as circulated. 

3.       Matters arising from the Minutes

           a.       Membership Update (JG)

 Jim noted that the three year terms of Porter, Huggard and McCain would be expiring in November. He outlined the process and indicated that Sherry and Dick are eligible for reappointment for a second term however Margaret will be finishing her second term and is not.

 Margaret had forwarded the name and profile of one individual who is interested. Mr. Darryl Peck is an alumnus who lives in the Toronto area and is experienced in fund raising. It was pointed out that there were a number of other potential candidates that should also be approached including Jim MacConnell and Don Downe.

 After discussion on the progress the Foundation had made in the past few years and the potential to move forward to the next level Dick and Sherry indicated they would be willing to stay for a second term. Jim would follow up with these individuals and the others discussed and help to process the applications.

 During the discussion it was agreed that the Foundation needed to develop a strategy for moving to the next phase of fund raising and board engagement. It was decided that the best way to do that might be to hold a half day facilitated workshop for the board and some invited guest to set us of on the right track. It was agreed that Jim and Sherry would communicate on the idea and plan for something for mid-late September.

           b.       Investment Committee report (DH)

 Dick reported on the recent meeting of the investment committee. The committee had reviewed the portfolio analysis provided by Scotia MacLeod and concluded that no changes were warranted. The portfolio was performing well and the recommendations approved at the last meeting were being implemented.

           c.       Directors' Liability (BM) 

Bernie reported that after several rounds of discussion with the lawyers at the Department of Justice, it had been concluded that the appointed members of the board as well as the NSAC officers serving on the board are covered by the government directors’ liability insurance program.

           d.       Alumni and Donor Information Management System (JG)           

Jim reported that the new Benefactor Alumni and Donor information management system had gone “live” on April 1^st. While the Development office was still working with both the new and old systems we were processing receipts with the new system only. There was still donation information to be entered for the past two years. It is already apparent how much more efficient the new system would be when fully functional.

 4.      Approval of Audited Financial Statements - Myles Johnson PriceWaterhouseCoopers          

 Myles presented the financial statements for the 2003-2004 fiscal year noting the increase in donations and disbursements. He highlighted the various funds and how the allocations had been made. He noted that the investment income was now reported as net of the various expense for the Foundation as shown in the statement of income and expenses. This was done to simplify the reporting of expenditures from the various funds and avoided confusion among donors. It was also consistent with the manner in which expenses for the investment portfolio were handled.

 Sherry asked how the $8,000 expenditure for classroom equipment was authorized. Jim responded that this expenditure was from the general fund of the Foundation (known as the AC fund) which included undesignated donations or those indicated as being for NSAC’s “highest priority”. The Executive of NSAC approved the expenditure in those cases. Almost all other funds were for a designated purpose and we followed the wishes of donors in those cases. All expenditures were reported to the Foundation Directors in the financial statements.

There was a question about apparent excess investment revenues in the restricted scholarship funds and the dispensation of those in the future. Jim answered that all revenue from those funds were credited back to the same funds and the expenditures for the specified purpose were adjust to maintain the capital amount over a reasonable time period. Scholarships sometimes had variable payout schedules so in any one period it may appear that not all the revenue was being spent but over several years it would be. He also noted that it was general practice to try to let the capital in those endowed funds grow slightly on an annual basis to provide for higher payouts in the future.

 It was moved by S. Porter/L. Hennigar that the audited financial statements be accepted. Carried.

 It was moved by S. Porter/L. Ells that the firm of PriceWaterhouseCoopers be appointed as auditor for the 2004-05 fiscal year. Carried.

 There was discussion regarding the tax status of the Foundation and the pros and cons of that status compared to regular charitable status. Jim observed that while the crown tax status of the Foundation was sufficient for most instances there were some cases where organizations, particularly companies and charitable foundations, could not make donations to NSAC because we do not have standard charitable status. NSAC would be eligible for charitable status from CRA but we would have to apply for it. Jim was still in discussions with the Alumni Association (which has charitable status for the Campus Enrichment Fund) about transfer of their status. Pending the outcome of that discussion and analysis of accounting issues, NSAC may apply for its own charitable status by fall. The Foundation would be kept informed of the outcome of progress in this area.

 5.       New Business:      

           a.       Annual Report (JG)

Jim presented the annual report for the Foundation for the year. It highlighted the accomplishments of the Development office and the success of the various campaign. He thanked all those who had helped in fund raising efforts.

           b.       Donations Update (JG)

Jim reported that the office was on track for the current year. There had been a total of $44,000 received in April and May and there was several large donations expected in June. He reported that we would be moving ahead with the fall direct mail appeal and that he was working on the logistics for a phone program for the fall and winter.

           c.       Centennial Planning (JG)

 Jim gave a brief update on program planning for the centennial celebrations including the Canada Post stamp unveiling (unofficial), Gala Dinner in February, Cox Field Amphitheatre project, a proposed special concert series for the summer of 2005 and the 100 questions about NSAC contest that would be launched this October. Several of these projects were aided by fund raising by Alumni classes and we were hoping for more.

It was mentioned that the centennial time period offered an excellent opportunity for fund rasing initiatives. Jim stated that elements of that concept had been and were being incorporated into appeals but certainly more could be done. This might be a topic for our strategy session in the fall.

           d.       Other Business

Sherry asked President Hicks for an update on the regional advisory committee. Dr. Hicks replied that it was working very well and provided him with valuable advice. The Directors were becoming more engaged in the workings of NSAC and a subcommittee had been formed to review governance issues. The committee had recently agreed to move to a quarterly meeting schedule from meeting twice a year.

 6.       Date of Next Meeting:

 It was agreed that our next meeting would be at the time of the planned strategy meeting to be held in September.