Attendees: Amy Lenox, Betsy Johnson, Carolyn Stanley, Connie Peterson, Debbie Romero, Dinny Hansen, Jeff Lowell, Jerry Hartmann, Jess Garcia, Kerri Patterson, Lisa Shank, Marie Telecky, Michelle Ball, Michelle Deerkop

Committee spent time reviewing the meeting handout listing the 23 questions from the Policy Committee and the corresponding answers. While reviewing the handout, members used colored sticky notes to provide feedback for each question (also displayed on chart paper). Feedback indicated:

  • Red (R): additional questions/issues to be addressed
  • Blue (B): things are good with this question
  • Yellow (Y): something was missed and should be considered

Review and refine response to board charge/summary

Question 1: How can the District have requirements in this policy that work for multiple types of orgs (booster club, B&M, Gates Foundation, Safeco, etc.? The committee believes that additional research is necessary to provide a clear answer to this question. The recommendation is that the committee gathers the research necessary to answer this question. Specific Comments – 0 Red, 3 Blue, 2 Yellow:

  • (B) “Good with need more research.”
  • (Y) “Specify what research is actually necessary? For Ex. Guidelines A, Language B”
  • (Y) ”What research would be entailed? How long would it take? Couldn’t we have general requirements that work for most groups?”

Question 2: What guidelines and requirements might the committee suggest that would help promote equitable opportunities created for all students from donations? The committee believes that additional research is necessary to provide a clear answer to this question. The recommendation is that a smaller sub group of our committee gathers the research necessary to answer this question. The discussion which led to this determination […] Specific Comments – 4 Red, 1 Blue, 3 Yellow:

  • (R) “Problematic to determine how this gets defined/clarified and who the stakeholders are that should be included.”
  • (R) “For policy – how can the lens dismissed by and used by the board be part of this language addition?”
  • (R) “Is this board asking us to make room for donations to be more equitable? Many grants do just the opposite. Who determines what is equitable?”
  • (R) “Seems awfully open ended % broad – question needs to be framed in a more specific manner.”
  • (B) [blank]
  • (Y) “What resources and who determines what constitutes an equal donation? Who is judge & jury? What is the procedure for a hearing to an objection to a donation?”
  • (Y) “More examples than just MI might be useful, to show that this isn’t an outlier policy. – Lake Oswego, MI, Seattle “equity in finding”
  • (Y) “Ongoing research is needed to prevent or deter giving due to compliance/reputation. Transparency on budget & needs of each organization.”

Question 3: How do we improve equity of opportunities created by donations in ways that do not bring experiences down to any sort of lowest common denominator of available funds? The committee believes that additional research is necessary to provide a clear answer to this question. The recommendation is that a smaller sub group of our committee gathers the research necessary to answer this question. The discussion which led to this is directly tied to the discussion in question 2. Specific Comments – 2 Red, 2 Blue, 3 Yellow:

  • (R) “RCW concerns – over reach – doubling up on fees? Direct or indirect fees are problematic – intent raise the bar”
  • (R) “How closely does this tie to question #2”
  • (B) [blank]
  • (B) [blank]
  • (Y) “Great question but what research and guidelines are actually necessary – what guidelines do you mean?”
  • (Y) “Need samples of concerns, of lowest common denominator. Fields. No hiring of certified teachers provide counter examples.”
  • (Y) “organized and qualified people w/ transparent mission of history behind an opportunity needs to be demonstrated to be eligible – but who determines this???”

Question 4: Should there be any sort of portion of donations, from some or all orgs, for some or all purposes of donation that should be required or contributed to a central fund? The committee through their experiences with a number of different support organizations (PTA, Music Boosters, Athletic Boosters, etc.) recommend that an indirect fee not become part of policy or procedure. The committee shared their individual experiences within their own organizations, detailing by-laws which may conflict with such a provision, the concern that donations may decrease due to having donor money used to support areas that may not be directly related to the original donation, and the concern that the District may not have the staffing to process and manage this type of indirect fee placed on organizations. Specific Comments – 1 Red, 5 Blue, 4 Yellow:

  • (R) “Concern re: 501c3 status with IRS. Depends on Articles of Inc. etc.”
  • (B) “Agree there should be no tax or fee or indirect non-voluntary contribution outside the organization the donations is directed to. Misappropriate is not acceptable or legal.”
  • (B) “All good. No req for set aside. However many grands and fully funded programs have “indirect” requirements.”
  • (B) [blank]
  • (B) [blank]
  • (B) [blank]
  • (Y) ”Govt rules re co-mingling private/public education.”
  • (Y) “District should consider a voluntary equity fund – would need to decide how to encourage parents to make a donation (say 10% of school PTSA donation to fund).”
  • (Y) “Maybe – many “donations” work just like grants, requiring the district use $ as directed grants allowed for overhead costs.”
  • (Y) “mention also that who would manage central fund would be an issue.”

Questions 1-4 discussed as a group: Talking about ongoing research and specifics are listed.

Question 5: Do we have staffing to make annual submission from all orgs viable to manage? If not, not might we handle this? The committee members in attendance unanimously believes that the District does not have the staffing to manage annual submissions from all organizations donating to the Bellevue School District. The committee does recommend the addition of language in policy to provide flexibility for the District when accepting. The committee agrees that the following is an example of possible language to add to the policy that potentially addresses the issue of communication between the District and all donors, whether an organization or individual: The superintendent and/or his/her designee may at any time request additional information from a donor prior to accepting a monetary or in-kind donation. Information may include, but is not limited to: i) A 501c(3) organizations IRS 990 filing ii) A list of individuals who have received money or in-kind compensation which totals over $500 from the organization over the previous twelve months. Iii) NOTE: THERE ARE OTHER ITEMS TO BE ADDED – THE COMMITTEE BELIEVES THIS LIST SHOULD BE DETAILED BY ADMINISTRATION/STAFF RATHER THAN THE COMMITTEE. Specific Comments – 6 Red, 3 Blue, 4 Yellow:

  • (R) “To what end? What will be done with info?” How does it change whether you accept donation? 990s, charitable filings are public. See Q11”
  • (R) “Does the proposed language regarding additional information address initial charge from Board?”
  • (R) “If taking control & oversight of donations then it has to be all monitored & audited/review equally & fairly i.e. if over $5000 in continued giving.”
  • (R) “Everyone needs to be treated the same, with whatever is asked for.”
  • (R) “You cannot choose to selectively pick donations or organizations to police or target. It must apply to all organizations & donation amounts equally. Do not leave yourself open to legal action.”
  • (R) “Doesn’t seem to address the usage of school name. How could this info clear.”
  • (B) “Really like this one!”
  • (B) “OK”
  • (B) [blank]
  • (Y) “Compensation? $500”
  • (Y) “I missed something here – flexibility needs to be clear and I didn’t agree that there isn’t staffing – I don’t know.”
  • (Y) “designee not clearly defined – loophole problem – define who/why not clear”
  • (Y) “I do not agree admin/staff should have sole ownership on policy/procedure we need stakeholders at table.”

Question 6: Do we need to add item 1 (Whether the organization is in good standing with a parent organization if they have one) and 5 (A report that they are following their own policies, procedures, in good standing with their parent organization) to a report? How are they different? ” As the committee believes that the District does not have the staffing to manage annual submissions, the list of requirements to be included in an annual submission is no longer pertinent, so there is nothing to consider for Question 6. Specific Comments – 0 Red, 2 Blue, 1 Yellow:

  • (B) [blank]
  • (B) [blank]
  • (Y) “Define good standing – who will be responsible for generating the report? Seems cumbersome.”

Question 7: Why 10k? How would this work for all types of org? Can you clarify and check that it works for all orgs? As the committee believes that the District does not have the staffing to manage annual submissions, the list of requirements to be included in an annual submissions is no longer pertinent, so there is nothing to consider for Question 7. Specific Comments – 5 Red, 2 Blue, 0 Yellow:

  • (R) “District will have to staff if that is the intent to bring oversight and compliance”
  • (R) “Why still a “thing”?”
  • (R) “Not sure the intent of the question. Explanation is needed in my opinion.”
  • (R) “I believe language regarding fees vs donations should be in this policy.”
  • (R) “?”
  • (B) [blank]
  • (B) [blank]

Question 8: What does this mean for a large corporation or regional/national nonprofit? Can you clarify and check that it works for all orgs? Can you clarify and check that it works for all orgs? As the committee believes that the District does not have the staffing to manage annual submissions, the list of requirements to be included in an annual submissions is no longer pertinent, so there is nothing to consider for Question 8. Specific Comments – 2 Red, 2 Blue, 0 Yellow:

  • (R) ”Slippery slope? Requirements of one over another? LLC/Corp Non Profit Different reporting requirements? What loopholes? Not necessarily only procedure?”
  • (R) “Same concerns as in Q7”
  • (B) [blank]
  • (B) [blank]

Question 9: Do you have examples of what documents could be furnished by different types of orgs (corporations, small business, large non-profit, school group like boosters)? The committee believes this is procedural in nature and should be detailed by a smaller sub-committee of administration/staff in consultation with support groups as necessary rather than the committee. Specific Comments – 2 Red, 3 Blue, 2 Yellow:

  • (R) “How does this tie into #5?”
  • (R) “If BSD does not have staff for Q6-8, will it have staff to manage documentation from donors. What will sub-committee consider?”
  • (Y) “Could have policy implications LLC Corp Non-prof Individuals”
  • (Y) “No transparency to the public and engagement a problem.”
  • (B) ”Good question and suggestion to refer to smaller sub-committee.”
  • (B) [blank]
  • (B) [blank]

Question 10: If no parent org, in good standing with home? The law? Other??? As the committee believes that the District does not have the staffing to manage annual submissions, the list of requirements to be included in an annual submissions is no longer pertinent, so there is nothing to consider for Question 10. Specific Comments – 1 Red, 2 Blue, 2 Yellow:

  • (R) “Lost in translation what did group agree is District response when not in good standing?”
  • (Y) ”Define good standing. Certainly must be legally consistent but seen awfully [?] as it stands!”
  • (Y) “Transparency public records requirements would need the District to be able to report.”
  • (B) [blank]
  • (B) [blank]

Question 11: What happens if org does not or cannot comply with the rule? Especially if funds have already, been used? The committee recognizes and asserts that the one area of control held by the District when a group does or cannot comply with policy is to refuse future donations. The committee also believes that any final decision regarding a standard to which organizations and individuals are to be held is procedural in nature and should be finalized by a sub-committee of appropriate administration/staff in consultation with support groups as necessary rather than the committee.Specific Comments – 0 Red, 1 Blue, 1 Yellow:

  • (B) “Like this one – noncompliance of financial requirements and audits – necessary.”
  • (Y) “Abuse of policy/power and potential for retaliation (2 way).”

Question 12: Can this (a checklist of organizational requirements with which organizations must comply) be covered with 1a?? (reporting = checklist of requirements? Or combine the two sentences?) As the committee believes that the District does not have the staffing to manage annual submissions, the list of requirements to be included in an annual submissions is no longer pertinent, so there is nothing to consider for Question 12. Specific Comments – 0 Red, 0 Blue, 2 Yellow:

  • (Y) “Abuse of policy/power and potential for retaliation (2 way).”
  • (Y) “Define requirements and agree to consistent set of criteria for all donating groups. Consistency key here!”

Questions 5-12 discussed as a group: We basically said we were going to do away with. Several members indicate concerns and they don’t like the idea of doing away with this. It is difficult to dismiss and should be kept open to watch from afar. Another concern is organizations being targeted, as well as concerns with transparency – including when organizations contribute what feels like a donation that may leave an impact on students. I don’t see any booster club or support organization that does things by the same rules. We have already discussed requiring things be done a certain way, which gets complicated when dealing with various types of organizations, like for-profit and not-for-profit. They are all at different levels, which impacts the transparency. If such rules were in place, would we have even fixed or caught the problems? This needs to be addressed somewhere as it is very relevant, but not necessarily in the context of this group. What is the root are we actually trying to get to? To follow BSD policy? What about groups compared to individuals? BSD has a responsibility to ensure the entities are following our policies and procedures. Maybe ensuring that adherence is enough .. if we just fill out the form and comply with the limits. Going back to the question … How do we take money from groups? We do not want to limit the money, nor do we want to make it so burdensome for the sender or receiver of donations that people don’t want to hassle with donating. Support organizations can cause a program to suffer. They can cause the school and/or district to be out of compliance resulting in sanctions. Is there a way for the district to have some control? What about the simplified statement that provides the district space to ask questions where they need to? Do we know what the law states on this issue? What about the RCW and WAC’s? Is it just the basic transparency? LWSD has a different policy for Booster clubs in term of tracking, following procedures, being transparent which has nothing about turning over documents and actually brought in equity. We can recommend it. If we want to address the Booster club, it should be something outside of Donations. We can do two things: 1) Simple statement to give us what we need with simple ideas, not an exhaustive list or 2.) Booster clubs for sports, activities or support organization having a separate policy and procedure is something we recommend looking into in the future. Yes, there needs to be a framework. What are the basic pieces of information a club should have ready and we are careful RCW and WAC.

Question 13: Do we have a definition of core items for athletic programs? Other programs that are curricular in nature? Specific Comments – 1 Red, 1 Blue, 4 Yellow:

  • (R) “For activities managed by Booster Club, can BSD define curricular support (band, choir, and orchestra) vs support needed from booster groups which seem to be curricular in nature – sheet music, uniforms, etc?”
  • (B) “Essential item definition seems fine.”
  • (Y) “What does “core” item mean? Need to define a wide latitude among programs.”
  • (Y) “Who makes the determination of what is essential for each program? Third party experts? Or?”
  • (Y) “We still need to address other activities.”
  • (Y) “Like the essentials but boosters shouldn’t be limited to buying enhancements – like sweats or bags, etc.”

Question 13 discussed: Activities managed by Booster clubs? Music booster for example, there seems to always be a line item that they need a uniform or sheet music or instrument repair … there is a long list being asked of the Booster club. Student are also charged for instrument repair. Therefore, there is confusion as to what is coming from ASB, the support organization, and curricular support. What should be coming from each one of the three sources of revenue and which should be paying for what? Boosters shouldn’t be limited to buying enhancements. Take soccer – soccer kit essentials are defined as uniforms for home and away, nothing more. Can Booster purchase the warm-ups given they play in the spring and fall? Value added allows them to be warm while warming up or on the bench.  Boosters can have a set of 25 uniforms for the team. Value add or supplemental items Boosters can pay for and the school will pay for the essentials. Difference comes because of the many programs that don’t want to check those items in and out. They want their own to have all year long.

Question 14: How do non-WIAA sports get covered here? The committee also believes that any final decision regarding non-WIAA sports has policy considerations outside of 6114 (2151: Interscholastic Sports) and that consideration for non-WIAA sports is procedural in nature and should be finalized by appropriate administration/staff in consultation with support groups as necessary for inclusion in 2151P: (Interscholastic Sports) rather than the committee. Specific Comments – 0 Red, 4 Blue, 1 Yellow:

  • (B) “OK as is.”
  • (B) “PREACH! (Nailed it)”
  • (B) [blank]
  • (B) [blank]
  • (Y) “Procedure and Policy need stakeholder input.”

Question 14 discussed: Stakeholder needs input. Both policy and procedure should have that as an overarching belief. Depends on activity and group. Stakeholders have a stake in the game. Examples would be the three non-WIAA sports: lacrosse, water polo, badminton.

Question 15: Are there any other exceptions we should make space for here? What current scenarios that are allowed would no longer be allowed? The committee believes that additional research is necessary to provide a clear answer to this question. The recommendation is that a smaller sub group of our committee gathers the research necessary to answer this question. Specific Comments – 1 Red, 2 Blue, 1 Yellow:

  • (R) “Thought the question was for the board. Why are they asking if we would allow exception?”
  • (B) “As stated, research”
  • (B) [blank]
  • (Y) “Not sure I follow “exceptions” – to what? Needs additional study – not sure I understand as phrased”

Question 15 discussed as a group: Why are they asking? For example, do we allow donations to pay for a trainer to travel with the team? Are there exceptions granted? The fieldtrip procedure says the superintended can sign off on any exception to procedure or exceptional circumstances.

Question 16: What is meant by term “need”? Can you explain what you mean by a need based approach and also saying donations provide a “value add”? Where would an enhancement field trip fit into this approach? Referring back to the answer to question 13, the committee believes ‘need’ is directly related to essential items to offer a program. The committee believes the second part of the question relates directly to question 15 and that additional research is necessary to provide a clear answer to this question. Specific Comments – 0 Red, 1 Blue, 2 Yellow:

  • (B) [blank]
  • (Y) “Needs is in the eye of the beholder. Need experts and progress as need changes.”
  • (Y) “Not sure I think this properly framed – Need v luxury? Value added? Needs additional attention.”

Question 16 discussed: What are the essential items to a program? Is essential needs defined anywhere? No, and each year those essential needs may be different so difficult to define. Teams are going to ASB and asking for money by what is required and what is something they’d like to have. It is up to the coaches to define. People running the programs should have a basic idea. If KingCo puts something in place, like trading film, that adds an essential. That is on the administrators to stay up with those things. Maybe there needs to be some published that outlines needs, so there is a definition rather than dealing with it on the fly. Is it potentially an Exhibit to a policy and procedure? An Exhibit could be something that is housed in a particular place and easy to find. You could have one across the district as opposed to have one at each school.

Question 17: How do we separate required fees and organized purchases from donations flowing through supporting organizations like boosters? How might a policy call out clearly that fees and t-shirt purchases and the like cannot be treated as donations students make to a club that in turn “donates” the bus or t-shirts, etc.? (also consider idea of “forced donation”) There is also a belief among committee members that any answer to this question would lead to policy considerations outside of 6114 (6102: District Fundraising Activities) and procedural language in 6102P should be reviewed to determine whether this question is addressed there. The committee also believes that any answer to this question as it will be procedural in nature should be finalized by appropriate administration/staff in consultation with support groups as necessary rather than the committee. Specific Comments – 2 Red, 0 Blue, 0 Yellow:

  • (R) “??”
  • (R) “Need better definition of purchase vs fees – I can see case of overlap & questions.”

Question 17 discussed: We need better tracking of what is a fee or purchase compared to a donation. There needs to be some control of the flow of the monies, especially when it comes to required fees and organized purchases that are run that through the school.  Without it there is not accounting. Also need to consider if someone can make any money? How do we get that into policy? Taking out the middleman? This most likely should be addressed in fundraising too.

Question 18: Should there be any requirements for donations that enable activities, trips, etc. to ensure funds provided will cover all costs for all kids to benefit? There is also a belief among committee members that any answer to this question would lead to policy considerations outside of 6114 (2320: Field Trips) and procedural language in 2320P should be reviewed to determine whether this question is addressed there. The committee also believes that any answer to this question as it will be procedural in nature should be finalized by appropriate administration/staff in consultation with support groups as necessary rather than the committee. Specific Comments – 1 Red, 0 Blue, 2 Yellow:

  • (R) “Fees charged to families should not include fees for others unless it is voluntary.”
  • (Y) “Serious consideration, all angles – loopholes and stakeholders.”
  • (Y) “Better and clearer language and defining special needs, financial assistance… “

Question 19: How does below answer question about dealing with individual scholarship assistance? Specific Comments – 2 Red, 1 Blue, 0 Yellow:

  • (R) “Not sure I even understand this question?”
  • (R) “Do not understand question.”
  • (B) [blank]

Question 20: Should trip fees be collected by district and NOT by org who will donate portion of fees or will cover for families needing assistance? Should district manage the financial aid needs of some families for funds and not the donating org? Each of these questions leads to one area: how students who lack financial ability to access some opportunities receive funds from support organizations. The committee believes additional procedural language that clarifies would alleviate confusion with school staff and support organizations when working to assist students in this manner. The committee accepts that it is best for trip fees to be collected by the District, but maintains that trips of this manner are time consuming for staff. The committee also recommends procedural language in 6114P that details that the District will manage financial aid needs of some families, which would necessitate inclusion of this new language in other policy/procedures (possibly 2151P and 2320P). Specific Comments – 1 Red, 2 Blue, 0 Yellow:

  • (R) “Very important topic – I just think it needs more focus and definition.”
  • (B) “Good answer – prompts more discussion about eventual procedure under those areas.”
  • (B) [blank]

Questions 18, 19 and 20 discussed as a group: Since finances cannot be a reason to attend, an expensive trip requires help finding a way for everyone to go. Donation needs to align with 6114. Current answer is too wordy. The answer should simply be if the funds are not there, we will find them. However, that may result in pressure on the support group to find the funds. Is that really their charge? In practice, it can be very confusing and messy. What about a surcharge on the base trip? Consensus is no. If cost is less than initially estimated, how is the money reconciled? With general donations, who gets the credit and which kid(s)? If parents give a little extra to cover the cost of someone else, who gets the money back? There needs to be a reconciliation but does it has to balance to the penny? A question was asked regarding a circulated memo/email and attachment labelled draft that was received by several committee members with a proposal of a tax or 30% fee when collecting money for a cause which would then be designated for other areas to be determined by BSD. The consensus was that such a tax and or fee was not supported or recommended as a committee. Another question was asked if the BSD Policy Committee has already formulated their policy, which Jeff indicated they had not yet begun and thus the charge of the review committee.

Question 21: Is there any policy that the field trip policy doesn’t cover that either this donations policy should cover OR that we need to update the field trip policy to be better aligned with updated donations policy? Specific Comments – 0 Red, 3 Blue, 1 Yellow:

  • (B) “Serious consideration, all angles – loopholes and stakeholders.”
  • (B) “Field trips need more work and resources for sure!”
  • (B) [blank]
  • (Y) “Serious consideration, all angles – loopholes and stakeholders.”

Question 22: Should we have any requirements around the time of notice to families for optional trips with fees over X? There is also a belief among committee members procedural language in 2320P should be reviewed to determine alignment with 6114. The committee also believes that any answer to this question should be finalized by appropriate administration/staff in consultation with support groups as necessary rather than the committee. Specific Comments – 0 Red, 1 Blue, 1 Yellow:

  • (B) [blank]
  • (Y) “Serious consideration, all angles – loopholes and stakeholders.”

Questions 21 and 22 discussed as a group: field trip 2320 policy/procedure should be reviewed to align with any revision(s) to the Donations policy.

Question 23: What other issues besides Title IX should be considered when reviewing volunteers as an in-kind donation? The committee believes that additional research is necessary to provide a clear answer to this question. The recommendation is that a smaller sub group of our committee gathers the research necessary to answer this question. Specific Comments – 0 Red, 2 Blue, 0 Yellow:

  • (B) [blank]
  • (B) “agreed”

Summary – Continued work by the committee:

  1. Further research to fully answer original and follow up questions of the board. Research to include:
    1. Potential district requirements/guidelines for donations that work for all organizations and individuals
    2. Defining/determining clear language that captures what is meant by equity in terms of the acceptance of donations
    3. How to improve equity of student opportunities created by donations rather than eliminating opportunities through unintentional or intentional limitation of funds.
    4. A definition of essential items for those programs with a curricular and co (or extra) curricular component
    5. Are there exceptions that would/should be made to a provision which would not allow for a support group to provide essential items to programs
    6. Are there additional considerations (outside of Title IX) when accepting volunteers as an in-kind donation
  2. Additional Procedural considerations for 6114P for appropriate staff to determine:
    1. Additional forms of documentation which could be furnished to the District upon request
    2. Considerations regarding consequences for those organizations that cannot or do not comply with District requests regarding donations
  3. Additional Procedural considerations for 2151: Interscholastic Sports and 2151P for appropriate staff to determine:
    1. How do non-WIAA sports relate to donations?
  4. Additional Procedural considerations for 6102: District Fundraising Activities and 6102P for appropriate staff to determine: 1.How to separate fees and organized purchases from donations
  5. Additional Procedural considerations for 2320: Field Trips and 2320P for appropriate staff to determine:
    1. How to include requirements for donations that enable activities, trips, etc. to ensure funds provided will cover all costs for all kids to benefit
    2. Specific language detailing individual scholarship assistance, collection of trip fees, and management of financial aid funds
    3. Alignment of language with changes/updates in 6102 and 6114

Summary discussed as a group: “All organizations” perhaps list them to be more clear. There is an equity policy being floated, so be sure there is nothing that is contradictory. Maybe it is a different word, rather than equity. We don’t want to see donations taken that create disparity in opportunity across the district. We don’t want to lower the bar. By taking the money you should be supplanting opportunities for other people. If it is a need of every population, are these donations supplanting solutions we could have for all students? Additional language to add regarding equity of student. Could be in a separate policy.

Planning for upcoming Board meeting presentation on April 18

  • Further details will be sent regarding the board meeting presentation. More details will be send via email to those that are interested in attending.
Select Language