For as much as I appreciate the Pursuant Ketchum feasibility study (saved in Google Docs) being posted online for the public to view, there seems to be quite a few pages missing.
It appears that only odd number pages were supplied, quite a few of the recommendation steps are missing and there are references to information that is not being shown.
Can we please get the entire feasibility study posted?
Thank you,
Nicholas Meduho
Mt. Lebanon, PA
Subsequent email:
I wanted to mention too, some of the appendices are missing as well.
Thanks again.
12 comments:
From the PK study they advise that 74% of the participants felt that a volunteer-led Campaign is the mechanism to the task.
19% participants did not believe the campaign was appropriate.
So,
1) there wasn't unanimous support for this idiotic fundraiser and
2) why was there so much money spent on salaries and benefits for hired leaders?
And again, how did that $50,000 "investment turn into over $900,000?
8:59...and how many total participants were there...a whopping 27. And 9 of them were school board directors themselves.
PK suggested that 14% of the goal of $6 million should go towards administrative costs. Look on the very last page of the feasibility study. Last I checked 14% of $6 million is $840,000, don't know where the other $32,000 came from. And then I believe they added the PK charge of $52,000 for a total loan/investment/accounting function of $923,530.
Nick M.
I am thoroughly confused. "The Mt. Lebanon School District will partner with The Pittsburgh Foundation on an endowment to support the schools." That accounts for the $3 million portion of the Capital Campaign, correct? If that is correct, then the 14% should be for the remaining $3 million. If that is the case, we should be figuring $420,000 for administrative costs. Doesn't the Pittsburgh Foundation charge us a fee? When will we get a report from The Pittsburgh Foundation?
Elaine
Nick, It's fairly typical for a fundraiser to spend 23% or more on administrative costs.
Had the campaign generated the entire goal of $6,000,000 in the five year goal, one could hardly be critical of $840,000 (14% of $6 million) in administrative costs as suggested by Pursuant Ketchum.
Unfortunately this campaign to date has only raised $966,473.68 in cash and pledges.
Therefore had the district followed PK's recommendations they should've only spent to date $135,306.32. Instead they spent like they made the goal.
Not very smart! They put the cart ahead of the horse.
Did I miss something?
According to the Trib: "The Downtown-based [Pittsburgh] foundation will administer and invest money placed in the district's Century of Excellence fund, an endowment created by a planned $6 million campaign that will establish a second fund to help pay for capital improvements around the district.
“We hold and invest that money, then the income in those funds goes back out in the form of grants,” said Kelly Uranker, director of philanthropic resources at the foundation."
I'm sorry. I am still not understanding the role of The Pittsburgh Foundation. If they hold and invest the money, and the district made an initial investment of about $50,000 in the Century of Excellence fund, is that on top of the $910,930.02? loaned/invested/stolen?
If the money donated was earmarked for fine arts, libraries, etc., and the income from the remaining funds go out in the form of grants, how much is that? Has that been reported? How can there be any money held and invested, with the administrative costs being so high?
According to Appendix D, the 14% was based on paying PK the first year, and the balance was for 2013, 2014, and 2015. Here we are, in the fourth quarter of 2017 and like the Energizer Bunny, it's still going.
Has there been a report from The Pittsburgh Foundation?
Elaine
I'm thinking Elaine that the Pgh Foundation wouldn't be bothered with handling such a paltry sum as $50,000 and that is why the $910,930.02 was transferred to the fundraiser and why in the original financial report it was noted as a loan.
Yes it would be interesting to see how much has been netted from the "investment."
$50,000 to Pursuant Ketchum for a survey of 27 people, nine of which were board members, to see if they thought a fundraising campaign would be successful!
That's over $1,800 an interviewee. Yeah, what could possibly go wrong.
It'd be interesting to read who the other 18 people were and if any of those that thought the campaign would be a success donated to the campaign. For that matter how many of the 9 board members did.
Hum?
In the September 11th school board meeting Dr. Steinhauer says that PK interviewed 70 people yet in the PK documents it spells out in the charts that there were only 27 people surveyed.
Did they toss out the responses of 43 people because they didn't fit the narrative or is it that Dr. Steinhauer can't read?
9:45, in one person's opinion for what it is worth, it is a lot of both.
The fact that they kept so much under wraps for so long proves the former and the fact that you have directors voting on board items they admit they don't read or comprehend could be evidence of the latter.
9:45, 9 directors sit at a table and listen to Steinhauer claim 70 people were interviewed and not one ask why the PK feasibility study clearly states there were only 27 total interviews.
This pretty much explains how things get approved by the board.
"Ms. Birks referred comment to her lawyer, Bill Clifford, who said his client “inadvertently voted” to approve contracts with the agency because approval was lumped into a single vote with a host of other annual contracts. Mr. Clifford said Ms. Birks has voted in favor of the contracts each year since she joined the board eight years ago. The votes were unanimous.
“She won’t vote on it in the future,” he said, including later this month when the next annual contract with the agency is expected to be considered by the board. “She wasn’t aware it was in those materials.”
Post a Comment