This article was first published by the Cafe on November 9th, 2006. In light of Kevin’s statement above we thought that this article would add some perspective to the new Academy Foundation.
I found it interesting that Ms. Musumeci (former BOT chairman) reminded the Academy Communities that Woodstock and Eastford approved a special bond in 1987 amounting to $14.5 million for renovation and expansion of the Academy (equivalent to about $27 million today). The renovations and the expansion were completed in 1992 according to her address. But apparently the renovation and expansion continues as the result of the excess cash created by the refinancing of those 19-year old bonds. Under other circumstances the decision to refinance might make good financial sense.
Normally private, non-profit institutions have development programs with a Director of Development whose job description is to drive fundraising through public relations under the guidance of some sort of long-term strategic plan. The Boards of Trustees usually play key roles in development of strategic plans. These same Trustees are usually key operatives of fundraising programs, working together with and under the guidance of the Director of Development and the administrative leaders. This is why influential people with records of success in business and government are invited to join these Boards. Such Trustees have well developed networks with other influential people who, because of their successes in the business world, have their own wealth as well as the influence and ability to solicit the wealth of other potential benefactors. The Trustees’ altruistic mission is to explain the importance of supporting worthwhile missions and institutions/charities by articulating their value to the community and to the world. In doing so, they persuade potential benefactors to donate money to the cause of the charitable or non-profit institution. I speak from experience having been involved in hundred-thousand to million dollar fundraising efforts by three different non-profit institutions. The keys to success were always the perceived value of the mission of the institution AND the effectiveness of the leadership, the development director, and the trustees in creating this perception. This is an age-old, well-practiced activity of private schools, colleges, universities, and other educational institutions.
After I read the first few paragraphs of Ms. Musumeci’s address my thoughts immediately wondered to the role of the trustees because the date “1992″ stood out in my mind as a benchmark for another well-known eastern Connecticut Academy, Norwich Free Academy. At about that date (1993), a new superintendent, Mary Lou Bargnesi, was hired at Norwich Free Academy. During her thirteen-year tenure as the leader of NFA she, working with her Board and staff, raised the endowment from $9.2 million to $50 million through fund raising and fiscal management (“NFA leader leaving reshaped school” by Dorethy Schneider, Norwich Bulletin, June 15, 2006).
Quotes from this Norwich Bull article:
“In 2001, she accomplished recognition for NFA as a “Blue Ribbon School of Excellence” through a U.S. Department of Education program that recognizes excellence and equity in schools across the country and brings further opportunities for funding and commendation.”
“Sheila Hayes, an NFA alumnae and education chairman of the Norwich NAACP, said Bargnesi did an exceptional job reaching out to the community in the past four years.”
“In the past, NFA was more of a closed institution, she said. It didn’t ask the community to get involved. Bargnesi tackled a problem of low parent involvement at the school head-on several years ago by sending staff and administrators out to community churches and organizations.”… “Since she couldn’t understand how to bring more parents to school, she said, ‘Why don’t we go to where the parents are,’ ”
What has the Woodstock Academy done to raise its endowment since Woodstock and Eastford helped with the fundraising effort 19-years ago in 1987 (now 22 years ago)? I suggest that it is the endowment that distinguishes a private school from a school supported by taxpayers and public funds. During the same 13-year period (now 16 years) when NFA raised $41 million, what did the Academy do to strengthen its fiscal well-being? It’s my understanding that the current WA endowment is about $1.2 million (please leave a comment if you know how much the endowment has grown in 16 years). I would not expect the WA to raise $41 million or even half that amount. Obviously NFA has the advantage of local industry and proximity with more populous affluent communities. So if the WA had succeeded in raising several million over that 13 year period (now 16 years), this could be viewed as a significant success. Instead, a growing population of students from the “Academy Communities”, increased values in the properties that the Academy has acquired, and a refinancing strategy have been the only apparent sources of financial growth for the Academy.
Today, NFA provides the Norwich community and surrounding communities with “a Blue Ribbon School of Excellence” according to the U.S. Dept. of Education with facilities like the new $12 million Arts and Music Building and “the explosion of diversity within the city and school” for its 2400 student population. At the same time, NFA’s current tuition is $8075 for Norwich students while WA’s tuition is about $9849 per student (this is in 2006). This difference amounts to $2.04 million from the WA’s 1152 student population.
By contrast, in Woodstock we have the explosion of vile language coming from a trustee (a frequent occurance in 2006/2007) who has not had a regular job for years, the silence of an absentee trustee who has attended only a few meetings in the last two years, and the janitor of the Woodstock Middle School with a poor work record who has taken the lead in the WA’s alumni fundraising effort. If the WA is “a shining star” why does the WA have to focus its PR efforts in Woodstock with articles in the Shoppers’ Guide? Instead they should put on their professional business attire, get out into the community and business world, and sell the value of Woodstock Academy to raise their funding and endowment? If in the last 13 years (now 16 years) the WA had worked to build its endowment after getting help from Woodstock and Eastford, we would probably not be having this discussion. Perhaps the WA should take a close look at NFA’s success to understand what Mrs. Bargnesi and the NFA did to achieve their tremendous success in fundraising. I would suggest also that the WA first ought to examine the effectiveness of their Board based upon its past accomplishments both personal and on behalf of the Academy.
John
It is a lot easier to depend on public financing than to go out and ‘sell’ the Academy and ‘develop’ the endowment. I was quite surprised to learn about the difference in tuition.
I think its pretty clear the Academy had no plan for the past 13 years, and has no plan for the next 13 years. The proposed expansion of the physical facilities is simply inconsistent with the economic impact of the likely withdrawal of Brooklyn with 30% of the Academy’s tuition revenues, and the constraints of Proposition 46. As with the expensive, failed septic system, the Academy doesn’t need a plan – they will just pass the cost of their mistakes on to the sending towns.
The author has hit the nail on the head – at its core, the Academy’s lack of direction, mismanagement and financial problems are a function of a lack of leadership on the part of the Board of Trustees. How would anyone considering a major contribution to this school take it seriously with the likes of Ernie Wetzel, Paul Lynn and Jay Livernois in such prominent positions?
The Academy benefits from the long, angry tirades of Ernie Wetzel against the town and its public school system, while officially associating itself with the more friendly, dignified public pleas of Ed Higggins and Jerri Musumici. However, all of these share the same elements – self-asserted superiority that cannot stand up to even superficial review, combined with demands for an ever greater share of the town’s limited financial resources.
Until the Academy cleans up its act, starting with its own Board of Trusteees, the town should not agree to ANY long term contract with this institution, but rather should keep all of its educational options open.
Great article Admin- for anyone who gives support annually to his or her higher education Alma Mater, one would know and understand a lot of what you are writing about. It takes sustained effort, solid leadership, and a strong and networked Board to raise large sums of money.
What I find interesting about what you have written Realist, is that your observation potentially explains the desperate acts we see them engaged in- like printing letters in circulars filled with FUD but dripping with self-importance. Just thinking ’9th grade proposal’ or ‘investigating cost of a high school’ must cause great agitation in their minds. After all, if there is significantly fewer students, there will be fewer ways and reasons to get monies from the towns. And because there has been, apparantly, little long-term strategic planning, especially around developing an endowment, a rapid implosion would likely ensue. I don’t think the cash reserves can prop them up for long. Very keen observations from both of you.
I rarely engage, or offer comments, concerning education in Woodstock- but found this article quite interesting. I would appreciate some response from WA or the trustees…and in the interest of democracy…it would definitely be beneficial to “expose” oneself…at least for the benefit of this discussion. Anyone?
Above is an excellent example (Ken Rapaport) of the kind of people that should be recruited to the WA Board of Trustees. Ken is the CEO of a successful company Electronic Envronments that I believe he founded in the 1980′s – this is no small accomplishment. He lives in town and, even better,……he plays golf, “fore!” (If I were asked, I would not consider the offer until they got rid of the riff raff.)
I have read the term “mattress stuffers” on this site many times. It refers to an uneducated and unsophisticated method of managing money and /or assets. It more or less defines our Board of Finance and of course – the Academy Trustees- namingly, those of the CPS persuasion ….. Too bad.
Examples of Private School Endowments
Choate..$198 million
Norwich Free Academy (semi-private)..$50 million..age 152 years
Pomfret Academy..$40 million … age 112 years
Hyde Woodstock (founded 1996)..$6 million..age 10 years
Woodstock Academy (semi-private)…$1.2 million …age 205 years
There numerous private schools below $5 million
NFA raised million of dollars not only WHILE improving relations, but BY improving relations with its sending towns. Ironically, WA has pursued an adverserial course with Woodstock, its host town, while raising NO money for its endowment. Apparantly, they have always found it easier to use the CPS crowd in a politial and public relations program to get what they want without the more serious work involved in building an endowment.
Woodstock Academy is like the proverbial “Welfare Queen” living high off the public dole, with the added twist that it falsely asserts academic, managerial and financial superiority. Maybe its time to reform the lifestyles of the “Welfare Preppies” by putting conditions on their monthly checks. “Tell them to get a job” would certainly apply to a few of their infamous Trustees!
How ’bout that Hyde school? Whats with the “we are destitute” position of late? Arent they building all over the place? How can they be in trouble financially with a 6 million dollar endowment?
Does anyone know how the Academy manages its endowment? Is it through a third party financial manager or do they manage it onsite? How is the endowment invested? 1.2 million dollars is a fair sum of money. Doesn’t the Academy have a “Reserve” of over 1 million that is kept on hand for emergencies, over and above the 1.2 million endowment? Is the Reserve also invested? It appears that the Reserve is definitely funded by the payment of tuition by the sending towns (e.g. 2005-2006 tuition payment put $100,000 into the Reserve, in addition to the creation of $370,000 surplus). Do the sending towns benefit in any way from what should be a sizable sum of return on investment, in the endowment and the reserve?
I have heard that the Academy’s entire endowment is kept in Certificates of Deposit at a local savings bank. Typical of the Academy – I would think anyone would have enough sense to get a wealth advisor involved and put that money to work.
At the private schools the Board of Trustees themselves are the biggest givers and a large amount of the total money raised, usually 20-30%, comes from those relatively few big donors. I don’t see that happening at present with the WA BOT.