Present were: Larry Nelson, Steve Haak, Marcia Hartwig, Marie Johnson, John Judd, Frank Fetter, Jim March and Ann Waterhouse (facilitator).
We checked in by sharing our commitments to working with the watershed and also a recent time when we were proud of being part of the watershed association. The following comments were recorded:
I was recently proud of...
Ann noted that we could spend time reviewing these statements and develop values which the organization operates by...such as inclusivity, community, involvement, concern for the environment, pro-active, diversity, respect for all, participation. Board members may be able to come up with others; they could then be voted on and priorities established similarly to how we arrived at the vision statements and the goals during other parts of this session.
During this section of our session, Ann reviewed the handout materials she provided to guide the discussion, specifically, pages 2-6. We spent quite a bit of time discussing "General Board Operation Guidelines," and the board indicated its interest in approving a policy that supported the board operating according to these guidelines. A policy like this would not have to be included in the by-laws and would be a board policy by which board members would be held accountable by the board. Each year the board could re-visit this policy to see how well its doing in following the policy and make changes as necessary.
We also reviewed the Organizational Governance Model on Page 5 in some detail and discussed the highest and best use of the board being at the "outer rim" of the organization, at the policy-making level. When the board is getting involved in the finer details of the actual day-to-day operations of the organization, perhaps the discussion should be referred to a committee, a group of volunteers to follow-up, to staff, etc. The board meetings should be fairly business-like, focusing on policies, monitoring policies and long-range directions of the organization, for the most part. Reports are important, but whenever possible, use written reports, assume people have read them before the meeting and just focus on discussing questions people may have about them. The board will want to spend most of its time looking forward, for the organization!
Other materials were supplied by way of background information and can be reviewed by board members when they have time and/or when issues arise which pertain to the information shared in the handouts.
What's working well...
What could be better...
Ann explained that a long-range plan is composed of a mission statement, a vision statement (if possible), values (if possible) and long-range goals (3- to 5-year focus). The strategic part of a plan includes ways you would like to implement the goals during a year or even a shorter period of time and include objectives (annual statements of accomplishment), and implementation plans (activities or tasks, who's responsible, by when, resources, role of the board or committees, etc.). The objectives are very important and the implementation planning is crucial if the plan is actually to become a working part of the organization and not just a few good ideas we came up with one Saturday afternoon.
Some long-range planning definitions are included on page 7 of the handouts, roles in a long-range planning process are included on pages 8-9 and a sample implementation planning form is included on page 11. The board may want to modify this form to fit its needs.
We also discussed the importance of monitoring the plan at least annually. A board meeting or a 1/2 day should be set aside to just look at the plan, see how you've done on implementing the objectives: what objectives need to be carried over to another year, which ones are outdated, determine the new objectives for the coming year, still working within the same goals. Or, the goals may be modified as well, if that seems appropriate. But you won't have to do the complete planning process again for another 3-5 years, depending on how things move along. Page 10 discusses ways monitoring can happen throughout the year and some suggestions for reviewing the plan annually.
During the vision session, we used the question: If the USRWA were completely successful in its work, what would the watershed be like? The following statements were recorded. They are reported here in priority order with the number of votes each received in parentheses, following the statement.
1. A watershed plan exists which includes contiguous environmental corridors and has planned development of community that prevents flooding. Overall plan exists which is environmentally friendly. The watershed will be a national model for smart growth and best management practices (BMP) implementation. (4)
2. Development and non-development communities live in harmony with as little pollution as possible. Protection and management of the watershed effectively involves a variety of partners including nonprofits, government agencies and private enterprise. Decisions are made with the interests of the environment and the watershed as a first priority. (2)
3. Water quality in the Sugar River will not be degraded as determined by quantitative measurements. Measurable increases in the quality of surface water in the watershed. (1)
4. A majority of watershed residents can describe and name the watershed's resources and issues.
5. Agriculture continues to be a viable land use within the watershed.
6. Public fishing access to water corridors exist.
7. Water quality is returned to pre-European levels. Non-point pollution is reduced to acceptable levels. Sedimentation and soil losses held to acceptable levels. A majority of stream banks are stabilized. Aquatic habitat is enhanced and water quality is improved.
8. A system is in place to assure on-going pre-European levels of quality are in place. Statutory monitoring exists.
During the small group work on goals, Marcia and Ann worked on a draft vision statement which was then modified by board members. The following statement was recorded:
The Upper Sugar River Watershed Association envisions a world in which stakeholders work effectively together to plan environmentally sensitive development so that the watershed emerges as a national model.
The board may want to adopt this statement or a modified version thereof at its next board meeting.
For the goals section, we used the statement: By 2005 I would like to see the USRWA be an organization that.... Participants suggested ways to complete this sentence in order to identify goal statements. We then voted on the statements. Goal statements are presented here in priority order with the number of votes recorded in parentheses behind each statement or set of statements.
1. Is a widely respected and powerful political and social ally for water resources; is the acknowledged advocate for water management; is able to take an educated stand on environmental issues affecting the watershed; has developed policies to deal proactively with the majority of issues affecting the watershed and association activities. (6)
2. Has secured the long-term funding and other resources necessary to support staff and implement the mission of the association; has strengthened organizational capacity for the long-term. (4)
3. Has developed the Sugar River Valley Scenic Recreation Area to raise awareness of the natural resources in this watershed; raises awareness of water quality regarding measurements, standards, BMP, threats and projects. (3)
4. Is larger and has more community involvement. (1)
5. Is more proactive in environmental issues and provides educational materials to the population through informational programs. (1)
6. Has the best trout fishing in the state on the Upper Sugar River.
7. Has been instrumental in removing all 303D waters from EPA's list for our watershed.
Board members divided into small groups to work on translating the goal language into the draft goals which are recorded here; goals reflect a 3- to 5-year timeframe:
1. Strengthen the organizational capacity of the USRWA to effectively fulfill its mission.
2. Promote the concept of a Sugar River Scenic Recreation Area to increase awareness of recreation and environmental education opportunities associated with the natural resources of the watershed.
3. Become the widely acknowledged advocate for water resource management through an educational approach, utilizing carefully developed policies to proactively address issues affecting the Upper Sugar River Watershed.
4. Work together with the development and agricultural industries and others to forge partnerships for watershed improvements voluntarily financed by the partners.
The board will want to review and approve these goals at its next board meeting.
Objectives are statements of accomplishment by which the USRWA will implement its goals over the next year. Two to four or five objectives for each goal are appropriate, depending upon resources available to support the work. We had time to brainstorm some objectives for each of the goals. The board will want to review these objectives, modify them as appropriate and approve them at its next meeting.
Staff and board will work on implementing the objectives and, thus, it will be necessary to have board and staff involved in developing the implementation plans for each objective. When board members are working on an objective, they report to staff like any other volunteer would do. This practice will help board members remember the role of the board is at the "outer rim" of the organization, and, as volunteers, are working in the center circle of the organization. As long as board members keep their roles clearly in mind, it is possible to move from one role to another easily.
The following information includes goals with the draft objectives we developed; the objectives cover the timeframe from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2002. The objectives are listed as capital letters in order to facilitate easy referral to the goals and objectives. You may refer easily to an objective by its letter if you include the goal number in front of it as in Goal 3-A, for instance.
Objectives:
A. To secure long-term funding to support staff.
B. To secure short-term funding to support organizational priorities.
C. To develop and amend the budget to reflect the current long-range plan.
D. To develop a fundraising strategy or policy which support organizational priorities.
E. To develop and approve the Board Operations Policies.
Objectives:
A. To develop a rough draft plan/budget for how to promote natural resources in the watershed.
B. To identify potential partners to support promotion of natural resources.
Objectives:
A. To determine what we need to know and how to approach this goal.
B. To develop a formal education plan for board members, utilizing existing resource organizations as possible.
C. To determine what other policies exist from which we may borrow.
D. To identify and prioritize critical policy areas for advocacy work.
E. To take inventory of what we have learned and to assess its value.
Objectives:
A. To create a list of potential projects to meet this goal.
B. To meet with the Dane County Conservation Department to identify prospective projects.
C. To research the concept of this goal a bit more in order to determine its overall feasibility.
D. To request that the Regulatory Plan Commission brief USRWA on storm water management plans prior to approval of urban service boundary limits.
Board needs to formally approve the vision statement and the goals and objectives at its next meeting.
Once approved, the board may then monitor implementation of the plan on an annual basis and review and reset the objectives as appropriate.
The board may seek input from members about its stated goals and directions. OR, the board may seek input prior to another planning process to hear from members about what they would like to see the association do.
The board members as volunteers, along with staff, will work to implement the plan, working from implementation planning sheets to as great an extent as possible, so everyone will know what the others are doing.
Staff may support the board's process, as available.
What worked well...
What could have been better...
Directors pictured here are (L-R) Marie Johnson, Frank Fetter, Steve Haak, Jim March and Larry Nelson. Ann Waterhouse is at the flipchart taking notes.