DOCSLIB.ORG

St. Francis College 2019-2020 Dream-Maker Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
St. Francis College 2019-2020 Dream-Maker Report ST. FRANCIS COLLEGE 2019–2020 ST. FRANCIS COLLEGE 2019–2020 Annual Dream-Maker Report A Message from Lawrence A. Marsiello ’72, Advancement Committee Chairman and Thomas F. Flood, Vice President for Advancement Resolve, Resiliency, and Recognition There is so much to share in this shared—All the darkness in the world Dream-Maker Report, we begin cannot extinguish a single candle. with the message your students and Fortunately, we have a community their families asked us to share—a of candles shining bright upon SFC, resounding, heartfelt THANK YOU! where this light provides great They (and we) know how much you strength, determination and hope. sacrifice for them—they also know, they Please take the time to reflect and would not be where they are today revel on the strength, determination, without friends and fans like you. As hope and impact you are having on dream-makers and angel-investors in Lawrence A. Marsiello ’72 Thomas F. Flood the lives of our students, their families the leaders of tomorrow, we hold true and their futures. Together, we to our mission, embrace our diversity, give witness to the embrace our moral responsibility to close the gap between spirit of compassion, caring and generosity that warms our those that have and those that don’t, and empower young hearts and inspires us in so many meaningful ways. It is the people with courage, confidence, access and opportunity. very spirit and call to action that the Franciscan Brothers of We thank you for being true believers of this institution, those Brooklyn entrusted us to steward and grow. Coincidentally, we serve, and each other. Let’s continue to meet any challenge it is a spirit that needs to be more present in the world today that comes our way, and most importantly, help our students more than ever before. Your gift to St. Francis and the world meet the everyday challenges they face, which are even is just that—instruments of peace, pillars of compassion greater during a time of pandemic. and people who will lead with love through words and actions, We thank you and realize that without your resolve and people just like you. We are blessed to know you, have you resiliency, we could not be who we are today nor who we could as believers, and to have you as partners in mission. be and will be in the days and years to come. We recognize The only way you negotiate challenges and respond to that you give with a profound endorsement and expectation— crises like COVID-19 is to have resolve and resiliency, and it is not about SFC surviving but it is about SFC thriving. we recognize that it starts and ends with your extraordinary We will—thanks to you, our believers. participation and gestures of support. St. Francis of Assisi —Larry and Thomas Fundraising Results FY 2019–2020: $6,472,282 SFC Giving Cup to the Class SFC All-Hands-In Award SFC All-Star Participation of 1957 with much gratitude to the Class of 1968 with great Award to the Class of for providing leadership support! appreciation for gathering the 1963 for amassing the highest highest number of contributors! participation percentage! TOP 10 GIVING CLASSES TOP 10 NUMBER OF CONTRIBUTORS TOP 10 HIGHEST PARTICIPATION ($, total amount by class) (by number of contributors per class) (%, classes with at least 50 living alumni) CLASS OF 1957 $259,071.19 CLASS OF 1968 5 4 Donors CLASS OF 1963 19.78% 1981 $216,750.06 1971 50 1957 16.67% 1963 $180,369.84 1969 48 1965 16.41% 1972 $148,287.54 1965 43 1961 14.60% 1975 $147,457.17 1970 42 1969 12.83% 1970 $130,351.12 1972 39 1966 12.72% 1959 $107,026.00 1975 37 1968 12.22% 1967 $89,197.00 1963 and 1973 (Tie) 3 6 1959 11.76% 1965 $51,234.47 1979 35 1971 10.31% 1979 $51,049.78 1976 and 1978 (Tie) 3 4 1970 9.98% ST. FRANCIS COLLEGE 2019–2020 ANNUAL DREAM-MAKER REPORT 2 SFC students showing their “L-O-V-E” through American Sign Language Honor Roll of Donors The following pages list alumni, friends, faculty, parents, grandparents, staff, corporations, and foundations who made contributions in the 2019–2020 fiscal year. The generous gifts listed throughout this report represent support to all areas of St. Francis College including the Annual Fund for scholarships, library resources, and athletics. Leadership Gifts While gifts of all sizes are gratefully received and carefully stewarded, St. Francis College extends a special thank you to donors listed below for their leadership gifts and for helping to secure leadership donations of $3,000 to $1,000,000 or more. SAN DAMIANO SOCIETY Angelo A. Giordano, Esq. ’70 and Catholic Foundation for Brooklyn ($1,000,000 and above) Dr. Joann DeLeonibus V and Queens Estate of Catherine E. Clarke + Catherine Greene BT X Brown Brothers Harriman XV James I. Konkel, CPA ’57 XV Peter T. ’70 and Janice Chingos XV LA VERNA SOCIETY Thomas and Paula McInerney Collins Building Services, Inc. V ($100,000 to $999,999) John P. Monaghan ’57 + Gene E. ’79 BT and Ginna Donnelly V Tim BT and Diane Cecere V Roy L. Reardon, Esq. ’51 and Patrick J. ’01 and Christina Dugan XV William D. ’59 and Aimee Maroney XV Patricia Hynes, Esq. ExxonMobil Foundation Lawrence A. ’72 BT and Karen May Ellen and Gerald Ritter Flushing Bank V Marsiello XV Foundation David E. Haverty ’81 XV Denis J. ’75 BT and Joanne Salamone XV Alex and Terri Rohan Michael A. ’61 and Catherine J. Michael Schwerdtman ’81 Vincent Rohan + X Henning XV T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. XV Vanguard Charitable Endowment X Patricia Henry John F. Tully ’67 BT XV Emily Horowitz, PhD V CHARTER SOCIETY Fred and Judith A. Wilpon V ($25,000 to $49,999) Investors Bank V Jerry and Jane Wolff XV J.N. Savasta Corp. James Argutto V Anonymous FOUNDER’S CIRCLE Bank of America Charitable ($50,000 to $99,999) Foundation X KPMG Foundation Peter J. Callahan ’63 XV BNY Mellon William J. ’75 and Geraldine Lovejoy XV Barbara A. Dugan XV John and Denise Buran Lorraine M. Lynch 91’ and Arthur Swaine, Jr. XV Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund X Carolyn Callahan X Morgan Stanley X PJ Callahan Foundation, Inc. X See page 10 for Donor Levels | Legend: BT = Board of Trustees | + = Deceased | 1859 Society Consistent Year Donors: V = 5 Years+ | X = 10 Years+ | XV = 15 Years+ ST. FRANCIS COLLEGE 2019–2020 ANNUAL DREAM-MAKER REPORT 3 HONOR ROLL OF DONORS | LEADERSHIP GIFTS (CONTINUED) National Grid Foundation Thomas J. Esq. ’69 and Eileen Calvin Baker and Lidia Paz-Baker Northfield Bank Foundation Killeen XV Michael J. Beaury ’80 XV Lester J. and Barbara Owens V Barbara G. ’76 BT and Robert Koster X Sean Brady Penn Mutual Walter R. Leong ’81 XV Joseph J., Esq. ’96 and Marianna Robin Hood Foundation George Lewis V Bruno Herbert V. ’58 and Mary Ryan XV Miguel Martinez-Saenz, PhD and Frank P. ’67 and Mary Cannistra X Julie Holland Joseph and Barri Savasta V Community Foundation of the MACRow Foundation V Florida Keys Philip J. Solondz Family Foundation V Joseph J. ’69 and Mary Martingale XV Edward N. ’68 BT and Jo-Ann TD Charitable Foundation Joseph M. Esq. and Mary Ann Constantino XV The Carroll and Milton Petrie Mattone XV James E. Corrigan, PhD ’60 XV Foundation, Inc. James F. ’78 and Agnes G. McCue X Damascus Bakery, Inc. PRESIDENT’S COUNCIL Martin P. McNally ’63 XV Carol T. Decina ’03 V ($10,000 to $24,999) Peter J. Michel ’63 XV Deloitte Foundation X Anonymous X Mulvaney Family Foundation V DeSales Media Group, Inc. X Ayco Charitable Foundation V National Grid XV James F. ’69 and Kathleen DeVarso XV Robert J. ’61 and Mary Ball XV The National Italian American Louis A. DiBella The Benevity Community Impact Foundation, Inc. X DiBella Entertainment Fund V Michael O’Keeffe X John J. Dietl ’58 XV James F. Bozart ’86 and Walton D. ’83 BT and Donna W. Pearson Michael P. ’81 and Hanne Donovan Donald B. Winston XV Pfizer Foundation Matching Gifts Albert G. Doumar ’57 XV Brown Capital Management, LLC Program XV John M. Downing ’59 XV Joseph T. ’68 and Karyn Browne V Edward T. ’68 and Susan Reilly XV Patrick J. ’71 and Diane M. Fallon Ralph Bumbaca Judy A. ’79 BT and Robert Rice V John and Karen Ferguson V Nicholas R. Caiazzo, Esq. V Ridgewood Savings Bank XV Michael J. ’62 and Cynthia Gibbons XV Domenick and Wendy Cama X John A. Rowinski ’73 and Rev. Msgr. Kieran Harrington V Robert B. and Joan Catell XV Mary Ann Curnan-Rowinski ’74 X Daniel M. Healy ’64 V Bro. Gregory Cellini, OSF X Lauren Rowinski HeartShare Human Services V Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. V Scahill Law Group P.C. V R.J. ’94 and Maria Hinners V Con Edison Company Louis J. ’71 and Geraldine Scotto William A. ’66 and Maureen Edward W. and Catherine Connolly V David D. ’64 and Ann Smith XV Jandovitz XV Stephen M. Cronin ’70 Robert G. and Kellie M. Sumberac V John E. ’77 and Susan Kiely XV Cullen & Dykman X Alfred F. Thoben, CPA ’70 and Penelope Kokkinides BT Inez D’Arcangelo XV Cushman & Wakefield Mary A. Ledermann XV Edward ’70 and Patricia Travaglianti XV Kenneth D. BT ’88 and Laurie Daly XV Josephine B. Leone ’08 V Barbara Tuck V Pasquale C. ’73 and Joann M. Jesus F. ’84 and Noreen M.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Impacts of Legacy Discounts in the Market for National Television Advertising
    Impacts of legacy discounts in the market for national television advertising Sylvia Hristakeva∗ Julie Holland Mortimery March 13, 2019 Preliminary and incomplete: please do not cite or circulate Abstract Advertising is an important input in the production of many final products sold to con- sumers, and national television ads still command the majority of ad dollars spent in the U.S. Yet, firms face different costs when accessing the market for national television ads. Industry practices suggest that (legacy) firms with long histories of participation in the market benefit from favorable prices to reach the same audiences. We seek to confirm empirically whether there are important differences in firms’ costs to advertise nationally. Contracts between advertisers and networks are considered trade secrets, so we combine data on national ad placements, pro- gram viewership demographics, and average ad prices for each program airing to perform our analysis. We find model-free evidence that firms that have longer relationships with broadcasters face lower prices in these networks. 1 Introduction Advertising accounts for roughly two percent of Gross National Product (GNP) in the U.S., and has important implications for society. Demand for advertising may impact the nature and qual- ity of media programming on ad-supported platforms, and can affect the nature of competition in advertisers' product markets. We analyze the market for national television advertising, and document patterns that are consistent with industry reports of secret price discounts for existing customers, which relate to the length of their ad-buying relationship. We examine whether these practices have the potential to impact firms’ advertising choices, and consequently the nature of competition between advertisers.
    [Show full text]
  • Slide Deck from FTC Hearing #5 on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21St Century, Georgetown University, November 1, 20
    Hearing #5 on Competition and Consumer Protection in the 21st Century Georgetown University Law Center November 1, 2018 1 Welcome We Will Be Starting Shortly 2 Welcome Bilal Sayyed Federal Trade Commission Office of Policy Planning 3 Introductory Remarks Commissioner Noah Joshua Phillips Federal Trade Commission 4 Revising the Vertical Merger Guidelines Steven C. Salop Georgetown University Law Center 5 Introduction • Goals of Presentation • Overarching goal is to stimulate deeper discussion and analysis. • Provide an overview of the rationale, basic structure of potential revised VMGs. • Flag several policy economic, legal and policy issues involved in revising the VMGs. • Caveat: Given time restrictions, this deck and the presentation are limited • See Appendix slides for further discussion of the economic analysis. • Many of these issues are analyzed in more detail in these academic articles • Salop, Invigorating Vertical Merger Enforcement, YALE L.J. (May 2018) • Salop & Culley, Revising the U.S. Vertical Merger Guidelines: Policy Issues and an Interim Guide for Practitioners, J. ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT (2016) • Riordan & Salop, Evaluating Vertical Mergers: A Post-Chicago Approach, ANTITRUST L.J. (1996) • Krattenmaker & Salop, Anticompetitive Exclusion: Raising Rivals’ Costs to Gain Power Over Price, YALE L.J. (1986) • Salop & Culley, Vertical Merger Enforcement Actions: 1994–July 2018 (posted on SSRN) (listing of agency challenges) • Selected articles by others also are referenced in these academic articles. 6 Overview of Initial Presentation • Introduction: Why revise the vertical merger guidelines (VMGs)? • Economic Analysis • Basic economic analysis of vertical merger potential harms and benefits. • Why competitive effects of vertical and horizontal merger are not inherently different. • Policy Analysis • Why claimed efficiencies and other arguments do not justify more permissible policy presumptions for vertical mergers.
    [Show full text]
  • Opening Nightat THE
    Opening Night AT THE HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH✍ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH✍ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH✍ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH✍ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH✍ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH✍ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHDEC 9 2015 ✍ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH5-9PM ✍ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH✍ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH✍ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH✍ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH✍ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH✍ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH✍ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH✍ SPONSORED BY HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH✍ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH✍ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH✍ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH✍ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH✍ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH✍ 1 HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH✍ HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH✍
    [Show full text]
  • Unreasonable, Arbitrary, and Capricious:”1 the United States’ Second Civil War
    “UNREASONABLE, ARBITRARY, AND CAPRICIOUS:”1 THE UNITED STATES’ SECOND CIVIL WAR by Joshua Frye A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS Major Subject: History West Texas A&M University Canyon, Texas June 2018 ABSTRACT Unreasonable, Arbitrary, and Capricious1 brings into cold relief the hypocrisy of the war on drugs, specifically the war on cannabis, by tracing the history of cannabis prohibition in the United States from the early days of Reefer Madness and Harry Anslinger’s proverbial witch-hunt, through the 1960s-1970s, to the current surge in efforts to decriminalize on state and local levels. Making the argument that the war on non-violent cannabis users is unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious and has done far more harm than good, the focus then moves to chronicling the struggles to bring sanity back to the drug policy of this country by Washington, Oregon, and Colorado in the election of 2012, and the success and early implementation of the laws in Washington and Colorado. Although cannabis remains a schedule one drug under federal law, the successes in Washington and Colorado have led to several smaller victories, each of which tug at the remaining shreds of integrity of the arguments for continued cannabis prohibition. With the medical cannabis industry having operated with a large amount of freedom under the Obama administration, the 2016 election of Donald Trump brought with it an immense amount anxiety for all. However the will of the people in regards to cannabis was also to be noted that evening as Arkansas, Florida, Montana, and South Dakota all passed medical cannabis initiatives, while California, Massachusetts, Maine, 1 Julie Holland, The Pot Book (Rochester: Park Street Press, 2010), xvi.
    [Show full text]
  • ECSTASY:THE COMPLETE GUIDE a Comprehensive Look Benefits of Mdmaat the Risks and JUUE HOLLAND M.D
    THEECSTASY: COMPLETE GUIDE A ComprehensiveBenefitsat the Risks of MDMA and Look JUUE HOLLANDEditedby M.D. Rochester,Park Streetmi VermontPress PDF compression, OCR, web-optimization with CVISION's PdfCompressor Rochester,OnePark ParkStreet Street VermontPress 05767 CopyrightParkwww.InnerTraditions.com Street © Press 2001 is byJuliea division Holland, of Inner M.D. Traditions International NoteAllstoragemeans, rights to electronicandthe reserved. reader:retrieval or NoThis system,mechanical, part book of without this is intended includingbook permission may as photocopying, be an reproduced ininformational writing from recording,or utilixed guide. the publisher. orinThe byany approachesany form information or by and any Libraryprofessional.shouldtechniques not of be describedCongress used to treat herein Cataloging-in-Publication a serious should ailment not be withoutseen as prioran Data endorsement consultation to with use a MDMA. qualified They healthcare also IncludesbenefitsEcstasy:ISBNp. ; 0-89281-857-3cm. ofbibliographicalthe MDMA complete / edited guide references by : a Juliecomprehensive and Holland. index. look at the risks and use--4nterview.theFactors—Interview.1.[DNLM: Ecstasyrisks and 1. (Drug) benefitsN-Methyl-3 2. Nervous QV of MDMA. 102 ,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine—therapeutic System—drug E194 II. 2001] Holland, I.effects—Interview. Title: Julie, Comprehensive 1965- 3. Risk look at PrintedR7v1666.M35615'.785—dc2l and bound E373 in 2001 the United States2001002945 ThisText10 9 8bookdesign 7 6 5was and4 3 typeset 2layout inby Janson Priscilla with Baker Morgan and Gill Sans as display faces EighteenthHelentice"NatureUsing by MDMA Dwightof Ralph the St. MDMA NWin Metaner,Reid Healing, Washington, EducationalExperience Ph.D., Psychotherapy, andDC and Foundation. Sophia20036—1802. Its Role and Adamson inSpiritual PublishedHealing, Copyright reprintedPractice, Psychotherapy, by ©Heldref originally with1988.
    [Show full text]
  • Uproarious: How Feminists and Other Subversive Comics Speak Truth Cynthia Willett, Emory University Julie Willett, Texas Tech University
    Uproarious: How Feminists and Other Subversive Comics Speak Truth Cynthia Willett, Emory University Julie Willett, Texas Tech University Publisher: University of Minnesota Press Publication Place: Minneapolis, MN Publication Date: 2019-12-17 Type of Work: Book | Final Publisher PDF Publisher DOI: 10.5749/j.ctvr69540 Permanent URL: https://pid.emory.edu/ark:/25593/vf4z1 Copyright information: 2019 by Cynthia Willett and Julie Willett This is an Open Access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Accessed October 1, 2021 11:53 AM EDT Uproarious Uproarious How Feminists and Other Subversive Comics Speak Truth Cynthia Willett and Julie Willett University of Minnesota Press Minneapolis London This book is freely available in an open access edition thanks to TOME (Toward an Open Monograph Ecosystem)— a collaboration of the Association of American Uni- versities, the Association of University Presses, and the Association of Research Libraries— and the generous support of Emory University and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Learn more at openmonographs.org. Different versions of chapter 1 were previously published as Cynthia Willett, Julie Willett, and Yael D. Sherman, “The Seriously Erotic Politics of Feminist Laughter,” Social Research 79, no. 1 (2012): 217– 46; Copyright New School University; reprinted by permission of The Johns Hopkins University Press; and as Cynthia Willett and Julie Willett, “The Seriously Erotic Politics of Laughter: Bitches, Whores, and Other Fumerists,” in Philosophical Feminism and Popular Culture, ed. Sharon Crasnow and Joanne Waugh (Plymouth, U.K.: Lexington Books, 2013): 15– 36.
    [Show full text]
  • Graduate Brochure
    graduate program Economics 1 welcome to graduate economics he Department of Economics at Boston growth path aimed at maintaining a top 25 ranking College is an exciting community of among U.S. economics departments. Recent T scholars from many countries who pursue hires include distinguished econometricians, applied and theoretical research on the pressing macroeconomists, economic theorists and applied economic and social issues that face the world in economists, adding to the established strength of the the 21st century. The doctoral program is designed department in these fields. to train economists for careers in teaching and The graduate program in economics is dedicated research by providing strong backgrounds in to training full-time Ph.D. students for careers economic theory, quantitative research methods in teaching and research. The program provides and applied fields. students with strong backgrounds in economic Boston College provides considerable intellectual theory, quantitative research methods and applied leadership to the economics profession. The fields. Requirements include course work, economics faculty includes 40 full-time positions comprehensive examinations, a doctoral dissertation and continues to grow. Faculty allocate their time and a one-year residence requirement. between research and teaching in undergraduate The program admits about 12 to 15 new students and doctoral programs as well as participating in per year. The size of the program permits the the wider intellectual life of the University, the department to offer a broad range of courses while Boston area and the world. at the same time enabling students to receive The Boston College Department of Economics significant individual attention. In addition to is ranked between 24th and 26th among U.S.
    [Show full text]