|
Future Fund Board of Governors Meeting
March 21, 2005 2:36 pm - 3:07 pm
Highlights:
- Board recommends $60,000 to Trees Across Hamilton and $120,000 to Cenotaph refurbishing.
- Yearly allocation limit set at a "fluid" $500,000. (Larger requests to be reviewed every 5 years beginning 2007)
- City agrees to help with communication.
- Subcommittee selected to frame board mandate discussion.s
|
Councillor member attendance:
- Ferguson (Co-Chair)
- Kelly - (in 2:38 , out 3:05 , missed 4 minutes)
- Collins - absent
- DiIanni - absent
The meeting had quorum (9 or more). Mary Gallagher (City Clerk) took minutes, but FF Board minutes are not available on the City's website.
There are 13 Citizen members of the former 'Community Trustee Panel', now called the Future Fund Board of Governors: Tom Weisz (Co-Chair), Tom Atterton, Shawn Chamberlin, Christa Chambers, Elham Farah, Brian Henley, Greg Hoath, Pat MacDonald, Bill Manson, Mark Milligan, Judy Partridge, Paul Shewfelt, Larry White.
Citizen Member Attendance on March 21st (as best I can figure out): Tom Weisz (Chairing), Brian Henley, Paul Shewfelt, Bill Manson, Greg Hoath, Bill Kelly, Pat MacDonald, 2 women and 1 man whose names I don't know. Judi Partridge was absent.
Link to scanned report:
Discussion (There are no microphones in this room, therefore the tape was unusable and the notes sketchy, due to not being able to hear clearly. What follows is a brief summary of the discussion as I heard it.)
Shewfelt/Henley explain the recommendations.
Ferguson : He says that a clear criterion for proposals is needed. He mentions that the yearly fund allocation of $500,000/year will be "extremely popular" and asks how the figure was derived.
Hoath: It was picked somewhat arbitrarily and is not set in stone.
Ferguson : Are these awards to be 'one-off's'? He feels this is better than committing to ongoing funding.
Henley : Agrees, and says this goes along with the 'legacy' criterion. (Some joking around Concession BIA which I didn't understand)
Kelly: He says that the goals are already established, so why re-evaluate (re item 'g')
Hoath: This was added because of previous discussions that the board has had regarding the desire to not loose sight of the goals and staying true to the original mandate.
Kelly: States that he thinks it important that the public is aware of the goals/mandate.
Henley : Notes that specifically it's the allocation criteria and procedures that are important to look at, as they're "not hammered yet".
Weisz: Several issues need addressing: Process, goals and objectives and 'a set of sub rules'. Some funds are available which are not allocated yet.'use appropriately'. A subcommittee is dealing with the communication issue.
Hoath: Says that communication assistance is going to be provided by the City, and that there appears to be a standard application form that is already in use by the city (that the committee has never seen) that lists the criteria on it. "We haven't seen this - this is new to us".
Weisz: This was put together "informally".
Hoath: All proposals they receive have the same format. This must have been as a result of the guidelines of the application.
I missed the next two comments by Ferguson/Weisz .
Shewfelt: The subcommittee met for several hours and they reviewed past procedures etc. There is a need to review all for "clarity", and because the "community is starting to find out what the rules are.." He had a question of clarification re paragraph 4 and the funding needed for the Skateboard Park , asking if it's been revised from two to one park. The Clerk/Kelly make comments about this, some of which I missed, but confirm that yes, the project now involves only one skateboard park.
Manson: He asks that the word 'recommend' be added to items a) and b) on the report, as the board cannot allocate the money themselves, but rather can recommend this.
Unknown member (woman): She asks if the sub-committee will be looking further at issues around mandate, goals, and procedures etc. Jokes are made around the table re this group getting their honorarium increased. The member says that she thinks that the whole group should be looking at this, not a sub-committee and wonders why a sub-committee would do this.
Weisz: He explains that the board doesn't 'get to this' at their regular meetings. (They run out of time)
Manson: He wonders what a sub-group can "accomplish around issues of governance?"
Weisz: He says that this group would 'organize the information'.
Unknown member (woman): She says that she's had lots of experience on other boards, and that she feels that it should be the full board that discusses these issues.
Weisz: He says he's not opposed either way, but suggests that a sub-group could pull together - "frame" - the information for a fuller board discussion. It is agreed that Bill Manson and the unknown woman will do this.
Henley : He moves the recommendation. Kelly seconds it and it is CARRIED. (On the list of recommendations being approved is funding for the Trees Across Hamilton Project, and the restoration of the Cenotaph in Gore Park . The details of the projects are attached in hard copy to the agenda.) Henley refers again to the communication problems they've been having, and that the city will now be helping with this.
Joe Rinaldo (Manager, Finance and Corporate Services) makes a brief verbal report on the status of the promissory note (etc) for the $100 million being borrowed by Council, and notes that interest will still be accruing until the note is issued (in answer to a question about this).
Shewfelt: He asks when the next financial statement will be coming to the board.
Weisz: Says end of March and Shewfelt says end of April, so it's not clear which it will be.
Meeting adjourned at 3:07 p.m.
|
