Motions Approved

March 13 – 14, 2015

  1. On motion duly made and seconded, the election of Jenifer Getz to the Board for a six-year term ending December 31, 2021was unanimously approved.
  2. On motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously not to automatically exclude staff members of other foundations from consideration for election to the Board, but to consider such individuals on a case-by-case basis.
  3. On motion duly made and seconded, the minutes of the November 7 - 8, 2014 meeting were unanimously approved.
  4. On motion duly made and seconded, the three proposed grants on the docket were approved.
  5. On motion duly made and seconded, the Special Assistance Fund grants were unanimously approved.
  6. On motion duly made and seconded, the declinations were unanimously approved.
  7. On motion duly made and seconded, the discretionary grant was unanimously approved.
  8. On motion duly made and seconded, the membershipswere unanimously approved.

Action Items

March 13 – 14, 2015

  1. The following items will be sent to the Board:
  2. Link to the online map of Noyes grantmaking;
  3. Schedule of funder meetings for 2015;
  4. Article by Manuel Pastor about transformational change
  5. Green 2.0 Report
  6. Building Equity and Alignment initiative
  7. Jemez Principles
  8. Workplans and indicators of progress (upon request)
  9. Link to “Grants for Shareholder Action”
  1. The Nominating Committee requested suggestions for new members by the end of March, with a view toward nominating three new members for 2016 by the end of this year.
  1. By consensus, the Board requested that staff present three organizations under consideration for the first Building Power Across Movements grant, ranked by preference, at the June meeting.
  1. The Board decided by consensus not to make a site visit to Florida in June, 2015.
  1. The Audit Committee will meet by conference call to discuss the 2013 audit.
  1. The DAF fund development campaign will launch on or about April 15, on the Noyes website, email announcement, media, listservs and YouTube.
  1. The Search Committee and Ellen Gurzinsky will develop the President’s job description and circulate the job announcement in May, with an application deadline of September 1. Two or more candidates will be interviewed by the Board at the November meeting.

Board Meeting

Jessie Smith Noyes Foundation

March 13 – 14, 2015

6 East 39th Street, 12th Floor

New York, NY

Friday, March 13

The Board met in executive session from 9:45 a.m. to 1 p.m.

Wendy Holding (Chair) called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.

Present were: Ms. Holding, Dorothy Anderson, Rachel Anderson, Nikhil Aziz, Brook Beardsley, Jim Enote, Steve Godeke, Keecha Harris, Jaribu Hill (March 13 only), Gregg Houston,Nicholas Jacangelo, Joan Lisi, Martha Matsuoka, Arlene Rodriguez, Lenora Suki and Ann Wiener. Also present were Millie Buchanan, Victor De Luca, Wilma Montañez, Margaret Segall and Kolu Zigbi.

Report of the Nominating Committee

Ms. Anderson reported that after a process of contacting family members of the Findlay line and interviewing two candidates, the Committee recommended the election of Jenifer Getz. The Committee felt that her prior experience would be valuable to the Board during a time of transition. She then asked the Board to confirm its email vote.

On motion duly made and seconded, the election of Jenifer Getz to the Board for a six-year term ending December 31, 2021was unanimously approved.

With Mr. Aziz, Mr. Enote and Ms. Matsuoka’s terms expiring at the end of 2015, the Committee has begun the recruiting process for new members, with an email sent to the Foundation’s list. Mr. De Luca will also post the information on Facebook and Twitter.

The Nominating Committee requested suggestions for new members by the end of March, with a view toward nominating three new members for 2016 by the end of this year

Ms. Matsuoka requested clarification on the policy of excluding staff members of current grantees and other funders from consideration. Ms. Harris asked whether Noyes would consider board members from other foundations, who might be helpful in fundraising and leveraging additional resources. Mr. De Luca said that board members could be considered.

Ms. Harris and Mr. Aziz said that they would like the Nominating Committee to consider foundation employees as well. In response to Mr. Godeke’s question, Mr. De Luca explained that this exclusion policy arose from possible or perceived conflicts of interest. Ms. Rodriguez and Ms. Harris, whose work associates them with other foundations, mentioned the possible conflicts or confusion of roles at funder meetings. Ms. Matsuoka suggested that while the Committee should not seek out foundation staff as Board candidates, it should be willing to consider them.

On motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously not to automatically exclude staff members of other foundations from consideration for election to the Board, but to consider such individuals on a case-by-case basis.

On motion duly made and seconded, the minutes of the November 7 - 8, 2014 meeting were unanimously approved.

Members and staff then shared updates on their recent activities.

Saturday, March 14

Report of the Grants Committee

Mr. Enote began by reviewing the 2014 grants data, noting its importance in evaluating the Foundation’s progress and direction.

He noted that the staff made five cross-priority grants in 2014 and were now seeking out more such opportunities. He also observed that all five included environmental justice. Mr. De Luca explained that while most Noyes grantees include an environmental component in their work, very few reproductive rights groups work on multiple issues. Ms. Montañez added that environmental justice groups tend to be community based, making connections among various issues. Reproductive justice groups are now beginning to consider the environmental components of reproductive health.

Ms. Buchanan said that environmental justice has never been one discrete “issue,” but arose as a response to the narrow perspective of the mainstream environmental movement, raising interconnected issues such as housing, climate and displacement. Mr. Enote added that“ecology” once meant, “don’t litter.”

Mr. De Luca reviewed the Foundation’s process for considering letters of inquiry, of which 99 percentare now submitted online. Mr. Enote added that declinations deemed to be “in program” are included in the Board book to provide the opportunity for Board discussion.

In response to Ms. Holding’s question, Mr. De Luca said that 15 percent of the 2014 grants were new. During Ms. Zigbi’s fellowship, the Foundation is not accepting new letters of inquiry for sustainable agriculture, although it is renewing previous grants.

Ms. Holding and Ms. Rodriguez asked the program directors to describe their process for evaluating a letter of inquiry. Ms. Zigbi said that she reads the letterand then looks at the organization’s website looking specifically for movement building and organizing activities. If she finds their work promising, she may call for more information. In some cases, she will award a Special Assistance Fund grant to build a relationship, and later consider the group for a regular grant. Ms. Montañez cited North Dakota Women’s Health as an example of this progression, adding that she also sought information from other funders and organizations.

The program directors also assist some applicants in finding other possible sources of funding, and if requested, will explain the reason for a declination.

In response to Mr. Enote’s question, the program directors explained why the Foundation does not include a reason in its standard declination letter. A direct “no” is easier on both sides, because giving a reason for each declination would be time-consuming and could open a continuing dialogue. Ms. Montañez added that sometimes sheasks an applicant to try again the following year when funds may become available.

Mr. De Luca said that this year’s Grantee Perception Report would provide feedback from grantees about the Foundation’s process.

In response to Ms. Dorothy Anderson’s question about visiting prospective grantees, Ms. Montañez and Mr. De Luca noted that now there are more ways to gather information without a visit to a grantee’s physical office, such as webinars, videos and meetings at conferences. Ms. Zigbi added that in-person visits remain important for the opportunity to view work on the ground and to meet board members in addition to staff.

Mr. Enote observed that the Foundation’s renewal grants speak to the open-ended, long-term nature of movement building. Ms. Rodriguez mentioned an article by Manuel Pastor on evaluating transformational change and offered to share it with the Board.

Mr. De Luca distributed a chart showing the correlation between increasing Board diversity and a rise in grants made to people of color-led organizations.

Ms. Harris mentioned the Green 2.0 Report (by former Board member Dorceta Taylor), showing that diversity in leadership and staffing in the mainstream environmental movement mostly represents more white women, while progress for people of color remains “pitiful.” In response to Ms. Wiener’s question about a leadership pipeline, Mr. De Luca cited the recent formation of a promising group comprising board members of color from mainstream environmental organizations, now challenging them to broaden the representation on their boards. While the “big green” groups remain primarily white, Ms. Rodriguez noted that NRDC’s new leader, Rhea Suh, is Korean American.

Ms. Buchanan and Ms. Zigbi pointed out that in contrast to the “big green” groups, people of color-led environmental organizations do not get the resources they need. Ms. Rodriguez added that the Building Equity and Alignment initiative, led by the Overbrook Foundation, emphasizes partnerships to provide resources to these people of color-led groups. Ms. Harris said that the strategies of the “big green” groups are not effective, and that organizations aligned with current trends and demographics would be the most successful going forward.

The program directors then presented their workplans for 2015.

Ms. Buchanan presented a change to the Environmental Justice workplan, “To impact local, state and U.S. policy on addressing climate change and climate adaptation.” Climate change is happening now, and adaptation requires local work from the affected communities. The indicator of progress would be that “localities are beginning to develop climate adaptation plans with a strong justice component.”

For 2015, the primary field presence activity in Environmental Justice is Ms. Buchanan’s leadership role in the EGA retreat as Program Committee Co-Chair (with Farhad Ibrahim). The Program Committee drafted a vision statement around the theme “Everything is connected to everything else.” The related indicator of progress would be that “Environmental justice and community-based organizations will be strong themes of the EGA retreat.”

Ms. Rodriguez asked about tracking these indicators of progress – which have been accomplished, which need further work – to hold Noyes accountable and to inform the upcoming strategic planning process. Mr. Aziz added that demonstrable progress would be important in fundraising and that the Foundation needs a baseline from which to measure this progress.

Mr. De Luca responded that while the staff has been tracking its activities and adjusting funding strategies accordingly, some of the criteria for progress are necessarily subjective. Ms. Buchanan agreed that the most important aspects of progress are the most difficult to measure and judge, for example, changes in public perception.

Ms. Rodriguez said that while metrics are not necessarily numeric, they should be built in from the beginning. Ms. Harris added that the Foundation should track both quantitative and qualitative measures, for example, small case studies across a range of grantees, analyzing five core indicators of progress while telling the grantees’ stories. Ms. Suki suggested adding a dynamic dimension to the data through comparisons over time.

Ms. Montañez focused on Reproductive Rights field presence, including a working group on health with Funders who Fund Women and Girls. She noted that funders’ activity around state-level work is increasing, as funders attend conferences like Take Root in rural red states and see the importance of funding state-based groups. At the Funders Network meeting, however, tensions arose over a reception that turned out to be a fundraiser for Planned Parenthood.

The Foundation’s limited resources have prevented direct support of the workplan objectives involving convenings and participatory research; however, Ms. Montañez has advised others on research projects and meetings.

Ms. Zigbi discussed the Sustainable Agriculture workplan in the context of the strategic plan. She said that in order to determine indicators of progress, the staff needs input from grantees on what is important to them and to other funders. Some indicators could not be tracked unless a grantee was already taking steps to measure them.

She noted that the goals of the strategic plan and workplan are ambitious, covering the full range of policy from the national Farm Bill to local schools and stores. Fifty percent of grantees are trying to affect the food supply chain, not only by advocacy but also by gaining power in terms of jobs and physical spaces. She observed that the division of “rural” and “urban” in the workplan does not reflect the interconnected nature of a food system within a region.

Ms. Zigbi also advocated explicitly addressing racial disparities, which are pervasive in the food movement because they are pervasive in society as a whole.

Mr. Enote then asked for questions prior to approval of the proposed grants. Ms. Getz asked how the international work of Grassroots Global Justice fits with Noyes’s U.S. focus. Ms. Buchanan said that while GGJ has a global analysis, it is a diverse national coalition. Mr. Aziz added that other Noyes grantees, including Southwest Workers’ Union and some Appalachian groups, belong to GGJ. Ms. Suki asked why Noyes does not also fund the Climate Justice Alliance, which GGJ helped to create. Ms. Buchanan replied that she would like to fund them, given more resources.

On motion duly made and seconded, the three proposed grants on the docket were approved.

On motion duly made and seconded, the Special Assistance Fund grants were unanimously approved.

On motion duly made and seconded, the declinations were unanimously approved.

Ms. Matsuoka commented that many of the groups being declined might be worthy of funding if resources were available. Ms. Holding added that she would like to see some Special Assistance Fund grants going to such groups.

On motion duly made and seconded, the discretionary grant was unanimously approved.

On motion duly made and seconded, the membershipswere unanimously approved.

The Board then discussed the site visit to Florida scheduled for June, 2015

Mr. De Luca said that a site visit would cost around $20,000 more than a regular meeting in New York City, but that these visits are important and impactful for the Board. Ms. Getz added that by seeing the places where grantees work, the Board could better understand the strength and depth of their impact. Ms. Matsuoka said that the Board should be grounded in the work of Noyes grantees before undertaking the intensive, internal work of a new strategic plan.

Mr. Aziz agreed that site visits are important, but said that now is not the time, given other costs. Mr. Godeke added that the Board might need to be available for issues related to the executive search.

Ms. Holding said that following the budget discussion, the Board would revisit the decision about a 2015 site visit.

Mr. De Luca then updated the Board on the Building Power Across Movements initiative, reviewing the document setting forth its purpose and criteria. Staff is now investigating and identifying eligible organizations, having chosen 18 possibilities from an initial list of 60. After further investigation and discussion, the program directors will choose three final candidates to present to the Board at the June, 2015 meeting.

In response to Ms. Wiener’s question, Mr. De Luca said that these groups are not current or former Noyes grantees. This process will serve as a way of learning to make grants in a more multidimensional, collaborative way, and the potential for learning is an element in choosing groups for consideration.

Ms. Lisi asked how this process would differ from current cross-issue grantmaking. Ms. Buchanan responded that the program directors would analyze the possibilities together, rather than making individual transactional decisions, learning from one another in the process. Ms. Zigbi added that for this initiative, staff is not limited by the existing priority areas. Mr. De Luca described the process as a “team approach” to grantmaking.

Ms. Wiener asked whether coalitions would be considered, given the importance of investing in collaboration and systems approaches. Ms. Zigbi said that coalitions would not be given preference and that the first step in the Foundation’s learning may be how a single organization does multi-issue work.

By consensus, the Board requested that staff present three organizations under consideration for the first Building Power Across Movements grant, ranked by preference, at the June meeting.