Importance of good nonprofit management controls in neighborhood groups

For years Minneapolis has had very active neighborhood organizations for years. A few years ago, the city decided to support them by allowing them to administer projects funded by the city (primarily crime prevention, arts, small scale community development and housing improvement). This resulted in neighborhood groups being formed in areas that hadn't had groups in the past and groups dealing with a lot more money than in the past. All these groups did become Minnesota Nonprofit Corporations with 501.c.3 IRS status.

The problem was that the city program that was responsible for working with neighborhood groups decided to concentrate training on neighborhood organizing. Beyond making some resource material available on their website, very little emphasis was placed on basic nonprofit management and very little training was provided in basic nonprofit management issues. Management issues like financial practices and board duties just were not a priority.

So, can it be any surprise that there have been a number of neighborhood groups that have had major financial problems? The most recent case was a group where grant money that was to be used for housing programs was used to pay staff. (The grant did provide money for staff to administer the program but the organization kept using money from the grant long after the administrative line-item was used up.)

Board members have said that there was no way for the board to know this; that it was done by the Executive Director and Treasurer without board knowledge; that the board never asked for the detail that would allow them to see this problem. It appears that this problem had been going on for a number of years. Clearly, adequate audits or controls should have caught this problem quickly (it finally discovered was in an audit).

So, how much did Minneapolis save by not providing the management training. Lets assume that the training would have cost $2,000 per organization. There are 70 neighborhoods in the Minneapolis program. That totals $140,000. In the one neighborhood I've written about, the amount mis-appropriated was around $150,000. This doesn't include the organizations that have went out of existence due to major financial problems.

Capacity building is low cost insurance.

A good idea for merger/conslication/takeover

I've been through a number of mergers, consolidations and takeovers in my professional life. Below is the value statement developed for the consolidation of the Minneapolis and Hennepin County Library systems. Could be useful in public, private and nonprofit sectors:

The Library Steering Committee and the co-chairs of the nine pre-merger teams, comprised of more than 100 Hennepin County and Minneapolis Public Library employees, continue to meet and recently developed guiding values for the pre-merger planning process. These values are:

1. We are focused on the needs of the customer and are accountable to the needs of a new organization and to each other.
2. We are open to new and different ways of doing things – what worked in the past may not work in the future.
3. We are truly curious and realize that there is rarely only one way of doing things.
   
4. We will work to understand and respect the past work of both partners while channeling our creativity into this opportunity.
5. We will presume good intentions of others and, if needed, will follow-up for clarification.
6. We recognize that there will be challenges ahead that will require us to understand and respect elements of bureaucracy and politics.
7. We will use our collective sense of humor to assure we have more celebration and less commiseration.
8. We are committed to open communication amongst ourselves and with all staff while recognizing that we do have some fear and anxiety to conquer.

1. 
   

Good Engineering doesn't mean ugly

Here in Minnesota we're now starting the debate about the design of the new 35W bridge.

On one side is MN DOT and the Governor saying we need to have it done fast and that there isn't time for a great design. To quote MNDOT, "It won't be beautiful but it won't be ugly." That has to be a new standard for setting low expectations.

The other side says that good design doesn't have to take a lot more time or cost any more. That side (my side) notes that, since this bridge is planned to last 100 years we should take the time to do it right.

The standard line is that out of the three goals:

• low cost,
• beauty, and
• fast;

you can only pick two. I would argue that that isn't necessarily true.

Often, in the push to go fast or get by cheap, governments go with the plan that looks like it will be the lowest initial cost. There are three very good examples of where Minnesota picked "cheep and quick" over quality and beauty that didn't turn out. All are within a mile of each other in downtown Minneapolis.

• I remember back in high school a debate in the newspaper over the design of the 35W bridge that just fell down. People were complaining that it was ugly. That just when Minneapolis was starting to re-claim the river from industry that we didn't need a boring, industrial bridge. The response was that the money wasn't available and the the design selected was a lot cheaper.
• A few years before that, Minneapolis built a new downtown central library as a part of a downtown urban renewal project. The city kept cutting the budget. No one thought about the future of libraries. We built the last library that had closed stacks--85 percent of the books were in stacks that were only accessible to the public. The building was not flexible, few walls could be moved. The building was dark. It was ugly. Only 33 years latter, we started the process to build a new central library.
• Back in the 1980s, Minnesota built the Humphrey Metrodome. Everyone was thrilled that it cost so little to build. Problem is, it has never worked for baseball and it is the last major league park built with a fixed roof (in Minnesota where on a nice summer evening you WANT to be outside--we don't want to waste our short summer). A short 15 years later, the Twins and Vikings started demanding a new stadium that would meet their needs. We are now building a new Twins stadium, only 25 years after the dome was built.

Now a little about engineering. Quality engineering is always about doing things with elegance. Quality engineering does not mean ugly. In fact the best engineering can be beautiful. Examples of structural engineering that come to mind include the Eiffel Tower, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Minneapolis Stone Arch Bridge--all designed by engineers--not architects.

There is a great OpEd in the New York Times yesterday--One Bridge Doesn't Fit All. By David Billington (professor of structural engineering at Princeton and co-author of Power, Speed and Form: Engineers and the Making of the 20th Centruy)

I Titled this post Engineering doesn't mean Ugly. A friend just asked a related question:

Is there such a thing as ugly engineering that is not bad engineering?

Monument to Consumerism

The Minneapolis Planning Commission (I'm the Library Board representative on the Commission) -OKed monument to consumerism-4 story-air conditioned, carpeted, brick and glass self-storage bldg for stuff. Do people really buy so much stuff that they can not "stuff" it into their home? Do they really have the money to waste to store stuff that they never use?

Should Computers Forget

There was a very interesting issue on Future Tense on public radio a few months ago (just catching up with listening to my pod-casts). Should computers learn how to forget? (The May 8th entry of Future Tense at http://www.publicradio.org/columns/futuretense/2007/05/index.shtml)

To quote from Future Tense:

Harvard public policy professor Viktor Mayer-Shoenberger believes our digitally-fueled culture remembers too much for too long. He's suggesting that we learn how to forget again."

Schonberger has just published a paper called "Useful Void: The Art of Forgetting in the Age of Ubiquitous Computing."

Some very interesting issues to think about.

Gaming for workplace skills

This post doesn't have a lot of information--just about something really cool I just saw:

Just came from a presentation on a project using a game design package to help teens develop job skills. (A joint project of Science Museum of Minnesota, Hennepin County Library and Minneapolis Public Library--funded by Best Buy Children's Foundation.)

Scratch is a game design system that uses the Logo operating system. Developed and supported by MIT Media Lab, it has a Windows and Mac version, will have a Linux version and will be on the One Laptop Per Child project laptops.

Scratch lets kids use programing to" create stories, games and animations." It has a sharing website that uses the creative commons license. The discussion by kids on ownership and building on other's programs has revolved around giving credit where credit is due and attribution.

It may surprise some but seeing a room full of librarians really excited about game design software wasn't at all surprising to me.

Technology vs. Community

I was at a meeting to present the plans for the MN Planetarium project to its new owner (As part of the merger of the Minneapolis and Hennepin County Libraries, the "ownership" of the future MN Planetarium will transfer to Hennepin County).

On county commissioner suggested that there should be no large central planetarium--or even a portable planetarium but that we just provide material that can be used on computers and flat screen projection systems.

The basic idea is that with technology, everything can now be done remotely, in your own home. This seems to be ignoring some basic people issues:

• There is a basic difference between seeing something on a planetarium sized screen and on your computer screen.


• There is a difference in brining your kids to your home computer to see the Universe and brining them to a high-tech facility.

But most important, people are social animals. Group experiences can be more powerful than individual experiences (For example, with DVDs, Direct TV, HDTV, why do a lot of people still go to movie theaters, live concerts, live plays and art festivals?) Events that bring people together help to build communities. Bringing people together help to build bridges between different communities.

The bloody details of local government: The Minneapolis Planning Commission

One of my duties as a member of the Minneapolis Library Board of Trustees is to serve on the Minneapolis Planning Commission--zoning stuff, city comprehensive plan, approval of variances (e.g. non-conforming uses, etc). It gives me a chance to actually use the city planning parts of my old Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs degree.

The Commission is made up of representatives of the Park, Library, and School Board, a representative of County government, a City Council member, a representative of the Mayor, and four citizens appointed by the Mayor and City Council. Minneapolis has a system that results in a lot of decisions being made by the board and less decisions made administratively by staff.

The meetings start at 4:30 and go until we're done with the business in front of us. Sometimes an hour and a half. Sometimes four hours. The way these meetings go is:

1. We figure out the projects that have total agreement and pass those with no public meeting and no discussion (consent items).
2. For each "controversial" project, the staff makes their recommendations and answers questions from the Commission. Then there is the public hearing (where the applicant also responds). Then the Commission further discusses it and votes on an action (which may or may not be the staff recommendation).

This looks like it will be a long meeting--four somewhat controversial projects.

The first project is for a small hotel, condo and commercial rehab of some historic building in the historic Minneapolis Warehouse District. When the project was first proposed it was turned down by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). The developer re-did the whole plan and got HPC approval. Now it is before the Planning Commission for a number of variances, and a vacation of an alley. The issues are number of curb-cuts (staff wants less, hotel wants more), alley vacation (staff doesn't want to vacate the easement, hotel want it vacated but say they would keep it open space) and grass on the boulevard (staff wants it, some commissioners think it doesn't make sense here). The commission discussion gets bogged down in some detailed site planning (that I think is none of our business). Sometimes we get into the business of picking nits.I guess that is what you get for having a lot of chance for public involvement.

The next project was an apartment complex where the only issue is that the applicant wants to have a larger footprint than zoning allows for the lot. Staff recommends that we don't grant that variance (but recommends approving all their other requests). We grant everything since it means the developer would only build a 4 story building that fits in with the neighborhood better than the 5 story building that would be allowed.

The next project is a medical office and parking ramp development in a very urban neighborhood of Minneapolis. This would be a great suburban development but paid no attention to its urban location. It puts a parking ramp next to the midtown greenway, it doesn't have an entrance on the street--its entrance is 75 feet back on a driveway to the parking lot. It proposed a sign high on the building that no one would see since there is a building across the street of equal height (the proposed sign would be great in a suburban office "park"). The developer came to an earlier meeting for comments but has only made modest modifications. The Commission approved a bunch (technical term) of variances that were not controversial. We did approve the project with a lot of conditions that the developer did not like (but in my opinion, we didn't go far enough).

The last project is an expansion of supported housing in a Minneapolis neighborhood that already has a lot more than it's fair share of supportive housing. But on the other side, this is a really good provider with a long history of very good service to the community. Added to that is the complication that the Americans with Disabilities Act may or may not apply to this project. It seems to all boil down to a couple of technicalities that determine how many of the units can be considered "supportive housing." There is no community opposition to the project. We find that it only has a limited number of units that are "supportive housing" and approve the project.

We have really good planning staff but I tended to vote against their recommendations today. They're professionals and don't appear to take it personally.

We finally adjourn after a four hour meeting.

Consolidatng library systems-Mpls Library Board Meeting

The Minneapolis Library Board is meeting at a smallish community library that is very busy--Nokomis--on the south side of town. (Note that the pictures in this post are of the new Central library, not of the small Nokomis Community Library )

Most of the meeting--all of the committees--tended to focus on issues around the pending consolidation of the Minneapolis system into the Hennepin County Library System.

The consolidation is now on a fast track with a long tail. Depending on how we resolve the money issue created by the Governor's veto of consolidation funding (a Republican Governor who talks about making government more efficient and effective but refuses to pay the up-front costs of doing it.) we may have the legal consolidation by January 1, 2008. This would include:

• Transfer all staff
• Transfer of physical property
• Transfer of personal property

Working to consolidate the operating systems, cultures, collections, websites, computer systems and other systems will start after the official consolidation when all the staff can work together. One very good sign--There seems to be an understanding that merging the cultures of the two organizations will take around five years.

One issue for the consolidation is the Minneapolis system's "Blueprint for Service." This is a new approach to providing library service. The staff has spent over two years implementing this major change in service. Three of the most visible parts are:

• Instead of librarians sitting behind reference desks, they are expected to be out greeting and helping patrons--the reference desks are shrunk in size and changed to standing height counters with no back--help is expected to be provided on a "shoulder-to-shoulder" basis.
• Many books and other items (Cd's, DVDs) are displayed like you would see in a book store--on display shelves.
• Staff gets much of the back office work done before the doors open so they can devote their time to the patrons.

This system has been fully implemented in two community libraries that were just re-opened after extensive remodeling and in the new central library. According to staff, we have seen a huge increase (75% in some cases) increase in circulation with the same level of staffing. Board members expressed a concern that this improvement could be lost in the consolidation.

Keeping the gains we have made in improved service will be a challenge.

New Libraries..Minneapolis and Seattle

(Note: All pictures in this post is of the Seattle Central Library. Pictures of the Minneapolis Central Library are in the next post)

Last day of vacation was a one-day lay-over in Seattle. Wife, mother-in-law and daughter wanted to spend time at Pike Place Market. After walking through ALL of it, we walked over to the new Seattle Central Library and caught up to a tour.

A little background--there seems to be some competition between the library communities in Minneapolis and Seattle over their new libraries (at least on the Minneapolis end--probably because of the typical Midwestern feeling of inadequacy--)

• Both are brand new--Seattle opened less than three years ago, Minneapolis opened last year.
• The two libraries are about the same size--around 360,000 square feet.
• Minneapolis has more items in their collection--Mpls has about 3,000,000, Seattle has about 2,000,000.
• Minneapolis's new central library cost about $130,000, Seattle's cost about $170,000.
• Both were designed by "name" architects--Seattle by by Rem Klaus--one of the currently "hot" architects; Minneapolis was designed by Cesar Pelli--an architect of international standing.

I'll give you my bottom line first (it is probably biased since I'm on the Minneapolis Library Board --but I was not involved in the design of or building the library, I joined the board 3 months before it opened) Minneapolis won.

The Seattle library is beautiful. It is a sculpture. It is creative. It is a beautiful example of the "industrial" look. That is one of it's problems. It is very cold. It is very sterile. It is not welcoming. It doesn't feel like home. The space called the "Living Room" doesn't feel like a place to curl up in a chair with a good book. A few more problems:

• The structure has walls and ceiling/roof of small, diamond shaped windows. This could let a lot of light in but the deep structural elements seem to block most of the light and most of the views.
• It is hard to find your way around. Staff has added nicely lettered foam-core signs propped up on walls to help people find their way.
• There is no front door. There are four different doors on four corners that don't give you a feeling of entering an important building.
• The building looks like it will be expensive to maintain--that is just a guess.
• Many areas where librarians have to work are concrete floors--hard on the feet.
• All the library staff seem to be behind desks--the new model for service delivery is to have library staff out with the patrons.
• The Children's Library looks like it is just another room with a few added sculptures. It doesn't have comfortable kid-friendly spaces. It also has two entries that are not controlled by any library staff--one very near an outside door(a security issue).
• It appears that the floor plan is can not be easily modified as library use changes in the future.

The new Minneapolis Central Library is a little boring. Two boxes connected with a central atrium. This is the same basic plan of the old library. The two boxes are primarily glass walls. It looks very open-it reinforces open access to information.

• The glass walls let in more light since there is little structure in the way (or maybe it was because Seattle was very cloudy and dark when we were there.) It looks very open.
• You enter from either one of two sides to a five story glass atrium. You feel like you are entering a very important building.
• It is easy to find your way around--the layout of each floor is basically the same and the floor plan is very open.
• There are few structural walls. It should be easy to change the layout as library functions change.
• The Children's library inspires imagination and has lots of little places to sit down and read. It is secure--one entrance at the librarian's desk.
• The Teen Center is a separate space designed with the help of teens. It has great outside views and seems to draw teens.
• It has fire places and comfortable chairs.
• It's lighting is bright but not harsh
• I think the Minneapolis system did a much better job using it's arts budget.

A few problems with the new Minneapolis library:

• It is set between two parking lots and a parking ramp. Hopefully one of those parking lots will become a park.
• It is not connected to the Minneapolis skyway system. It is designed to be but there is now money to do it and the building owner to the south doesn't want a skyway connection.
• The special collections room is only open very limited hours.
• As far as I can tell, the fireplaces have never been turned on.
• The library is only open five days a week and only two nights a week. It is closed totally on Sunday and Monday.
• Minneapolis recently had to close three community libraries because of budget problems (this wasn't because of the New Central Library but just shows the lack of funding)

The bottom line--while I like the Minneapolis Central Library more than Seattle's, Seattle can keep their libraries open reasonable hours.

Juneau, Seattle and Home

Got into Juneau early morning. Have breakfast on the ship than off on a tour until our plane .leaves. Visit the Mendenhall glacier--the glacier is about a mile away. Closest point is the Forest Service Visitor Center It is kind of anti-climatic.

My theory is that they get us relatively close to 8 glaciers with the hope that we'll be able to see at least a couple of them without fog. We saw all eight. Three of them within 1/4 mile (as close as it is "safe" to get).We visit a great (small) Alaska historic museum. End up going to their store downtown (a short walk away) and buying a great Aleut mask.

We walk over to the Alaska state capital. No dome (which is great) but it kind of looks like a 1940s bank building. Nothing special. This seems to fit the nature of Alaskans.

We fly out of Juneau and get to Seattle about 7 PM. We spend the night in Seattle at a great downtown hotel--Hotel Max. It is a 1930s hotel that was "modernized sometime in the 50s or 60s (destroyed all the historic character on the inside). The remodeled it two years ago to ultra hip modern (photographs covering all the room doors, a lobby in black and red.....).

Next morning we do some quick site seeing--Pike Place Market and the new downtown library. Pike Place Market is one of those few "festive marketing" developments that has worked economically. Probably because it grew organically from the historic farmers' market instead of being started from scratch by a city or developer. The library deserves a separate blog.

Get home Monday night at midnight and crash. Get up at 7 to get to a dentist appointment.

Endicott Arm

We go up Ford's Terror. It is an arm of Endicott Arm that has a huge tidal surge. Big blue iceberg. The ship is maneuvered right next to a waterfall off the rocks.

Back in Endicott Arm. I'm in our cabin writing the blog and a large iceberg goes by our window. The cabin really lights up from the reflected light.

Geek Note: According to the Captain, Endicott Arm is a communications dead zone. The only communications in here is the GPS satellites.

Killer whales--Orcas (actually in the porpoise family) --are spotted so we turn around. At one point they are along side of the ship. The naturalists are debating whether these are resident (fish eating) or transient (marine mammal eating) killer whales. The main difference is behavior. (e.g. size of the group, vocalization behavior). They finally decide that they are transient-- by dropping a hydrophone and listening. Transient killer whales are quiet. resident killer whales "talk" a lot.

We leave the group of females and younger males and head over to see the male. It has a six foot dorsal fin. While it's about 1/2 mile away, it is still part of the group and is in communication with them.

We are now headed further up Endicott Arm. More and more ice. See a new- born seals on the ice with the moms.

Need to make a decision--do I kayak among the icebergs (actually, most are classified as "bergie bits"--yes that is the official term for small icebergs--or growlers--even smaller pieces of ice) or do I take the zodiac ride up to within a quarter mile of the glacier face. We all take the zodiac ride. We see lots of seal pups, some fantastic icebergs and watch the glacier calf from within 1/4 mile.

Back to the cabin to pack--we leave the ship about 8:30 AM tomorrow.