Mission Executive Council

Mission Executive Council May 2-3, 2016 Meeting Lincroft, NJ

Monday – 02 May Ex-Officio Members Present: Br. Dennis Malloy, Maryann Donohue-Lynch

Members Present: Mark Carty, Br. Jack Curran, Ross Fales (Mon. only.), Lois Harr, Jim Logan (Mon. only), Jeff Mancabelli, Peggy Perkins, Ben Ventresca, Alan Weyland (Chair, Ex-Officio)

Members Absent and Excused: Br. Ernest Miller, Kevin Regan, Bob Scott, Bill Wolff

1. Meeting convened at 8:45 am with Prayer – Maryann Donohue-Lynch

2. Review of the 03 March 2016 Minutes Motion: To accept the minutes of the March meeting (Mancabelli / Harr) – Approved Unanimously.

3. Election of Officers for 2016-2017: Vice-Chairperson: Lois Harr (Curran / Logan) - Approved Unanimously Recording Secretary: Ben Ventresca (Mancabellli / Fales) - Approved Unanimously

Jeff Mancabelli (7 years) and Kevin Regan (3 years) finish their terms after this meeting. A message from Kevin Regan was read.

4. Calendar for 2016-2017: September 19-20 CBA (Alumni Hall/Fleming Hall--with District Council) December 5-6 St. Francis-St. Vincent, Bensalem, PA March 20-21 CBA (Fleming Hall), Lincroft, NJ Above meetings will begin 8:30 am Monday and conclude at noon, Tuesday. June 19-20 CBA (Fleming Hall), Lincroft, NJ This meeting will start at noon, Monday and conclude at 4:00 PM, Tuesday. 5. Formation/Education – Directional Statements Sharing of insights by each member on the article dealing with Evangelization and Catechesis: “How to Meet Christ” by Br. John Crawford.

6. District Leadership and General Reports a. Report of Brother Dennis Malloy - Visitor: i. role of Br. Dennis Lee as Auxiliary Visitor filling in for Br. Charles Kitson and CTIE (Nairobi, Kenya) responsibilities. ii. St. Vincent Strambi: Bishop Neil Tiedimann has been named as a new Auxiliary Bishop for the Diocese of Brooklyn. Situation ambiguous. iii. Brothers News: 1. Meeting on “Announcing the Gospel to the Poor” held in West Windsor, NJ. 30 Brothers present. Trending ideas all in regard to serving the poor and the underprivileged: freedom and resources to create new ministries - generalization, infuse current ministries with new initiatives, empowerment of grass roots proposals in context of people in need, going beyond the borders within our own district vis-a-vis immigrant and Hispanic demographic, collaborative efforts with other religious organizations / religious orders. 2. Summer District retreat - “Time of Grace” - to be held at La Salle University, Philadelphia. 3. Future of communities – 3 year plan – closing and consolidation. 4. Plante – Moran Study – ongoing – report due for September meeting. 5. Implications of Br. Michel Sauvage's Fragile Witness of Hope for MEC: Citation: “When they look at us...what will they remember about us...will we be remembered for our network or for our work with the poor.” Challenge of “dangerous memory.”

Break: 10:15-10:30 am. Members were presented written reports by both Alan Weyland and Maryann Donohue-Lynch.

b. Report of Alan Weyland - Executive Director for Mission and Ministry: The following topics were treated: 1. Leadership Updates; 2. Summer Workshops for New Board Chairs and Chief Administrators; 3. Jamaica (cf. above 6.a.ii.); 4. Haiti – our support has made a difference, equipment in both school and community have been updated; 5. Ministry Participation; 6. Lwanga; 7. John Johnston Institute; 8. New Generations Leadership – new LAYFS formation program; 9. Encuentro Latino;10. Ministry Visits. c. Report of Maryann Donohue-Lynch – Associate Executive Director for Mission and Ministry: i. The following topics were treated: 1. Formation Programs and Opportunities - Animator's workshop: schedule was presented with comment on the joint meeting held with the Association for the Lasallian Mission Committee / the DENA Women's Retreat; 2. Come and See 2016 – Kenya – participation challenges; 3. Lasallian Youth Summer Assembly: Let Mercy Flow! - Italian group will be attending for the 3rd year in a row; 4. Association; 5. Ministry Visits; 6. Communications – review of different means; 7. Catholic Relief Services (CRS) – partnership that will assist our secondary schools in dealing with Catholic Social teachings; 8. Lasallian Mission Assessment 2015-2016; 9. Young Lasallian Committee; 10. participation in Plante- Moran interviews and serving on planning committee for Brothers' Summer Retreat. ii. How are the grass roots teaching base affected by the various programs? iii. Phrase often heard regarding Encuentro: “People return on fire!” iv. Importance of education moving from the global to local levels regarding education for faculty and students. v. Example of De La Salle, Toronto giving hospitality to Syrian refugees. vi. Attention intended for administrators and staff who can then make teachers aware of issues / challenges.

Lunch 12:00 PM – 1:00 pm

7. Standing Committee Meetings (1:00-2:10 pm) / Report Out (2:15 – 2:55 pm) a. Education and Formation for Association and Mission i. Review and edit of DENA Young Lasallians Council Charter. ii. Formation Programs: 1. Huether – themes will correspond to “Leading Up to 2021.” There is concern regarding themes / loss of educational emphasis / must take into account ministry constituencies / alternate themes suggested focusing on Lasallian mission and education. 2. District – spring workshops – 2 year cycle: 1st year – particular - thematic – focus / 2nd year – position oriented (ex: Academic VP's). 3. Regarding New Educator's Workshop – suggested for 2nd and 3rd year teachers as well as San Miguel and Youth & Family Services. In all cases, survey chief administrators as to needs. b. Lasallian Mission i. Regarding Covenants: 1. CBA, Albany Motion: That the CBA, Albany Covenant be approved (Ventresca /Logan) – Approved Unanimously. 2. La Salle School, Albany – Tabled as there were questions regarding Section 1, paragraph 3 – in regard to “There are no membership distinctions” and “No organization, religious order or individual(s) hold any reserve powers.” ii. LMAP Review / Revise Process document was referenced. 1. It was pointed out that all was referenced to “5 Goals of Lasallian Education.” 2. Should also address outcomes from General and District Chapter documents. 3. “Current realities” section of document was referenced. 4. As covenants are received and reviewed, outcomes of Chapter could become more explicit – could be done during LMAP, be tied into Mission Assessment. 5. Covenant is renewed when new leadership takes over – tie into this as well. 6. The following sections of the LMAP Review/Revise Process document were also referred to: a. Bullet 2 of “Additional thoughts / ideas.” b. Bullets 5 & 8 of “Recommendations.” iii. Discussion then turned to responding and engaging in service with the poor through education. The document “Data Collection Initiative Year 4 – Legacy District of San Francisco – April 2015” was referenced. The following points were raised: 1. Mission Assessment Process, Annual visits and reports - how is information being gathered and used? 2. need for a common base. 3. benchmarks – evolving process. 4. what is % of finances given to mission-based activities. 5. how is mission being served. 6. committee to come up with listing of elements – referring to document cited – what is it that is important to us – would be part of process. Jeff Mancabelli, Ben Ventresca and Alan Weyland will form a committee to come up with a tool.

Break: 2:55 – 3:00 pm

8. Forum: a. MEC – District Council Survey Results – Identifying Key Points Members are asked to identify 4 or 5 areas with high interest based on survey results using “Immediate Priority” and “Near Future Priority” as guides. i. Q 3. It is felt that emphasis is on the second half of the question “look for opportunities to share best practices across ministries.” The following points are made: 1. maybe emphasis should be in “on-line education.” 2. set up a best practices data base giving background information on who is doing what – sharing information – listing contact people as well. 3. cross pollination may not be present. 4. ties in with Q 26 #'s 1, 2, 3. 5. we have to be aware of sources – challenges are present- where are people in our ministries communicating? 6. put on DENA website. ii. Q 5. 1. form group to research survey. 2. find tools and move forward with a plan – easily accessible and applicable. 3. begin with 4 ministry areas / types – set up a think tank and then find common ground. iii. Q 22. 1. what more can be done. 2. strategy session with Lasallian Associations– how does it need to evolve? 3. concern is for secondary schools getting together – possibly by geographic area. 4. What is “actionable” - a group composed of District Council and MEC members to find “conversation” points. 5. Joint session be initial discussion on Plante-Moran study. iv. In the future allow for written commentary with the question – reference made to Q's 23-27. v. What are the essential messages – look at Q's that have “energy.” (again cf. Q's 23-27). vi. Q 27 shared with Plante-Moran. b. Advocacy regarding Palestine i. advice is needed in this matter. ii. letters received from Bros. Larry Schatz (Visitor – MidWest District), Peter Bray. Item came from CMSM. iii. District advocacy plan is based on RCCB policy – issue must deal with students and Lasallian educational mission. iv. questions: what is implied and what does it mean to us if we sign on; would it affect institutional policies / purchases and those who might be employed by boycotted companies. v. at what point do we become active and take a stand. vi. boycott could possibly close off “conversations” - dialogue with particular groups. vii. advocacy could take form of a “Come and See”, an LSJI – positive thrusts. viii. encourage buying of Palestinian goods from Catholic Relief Services (CRS) – a positive support. ix. bring attention of issue to all for personal awareness and involvement. x. there is no public listing of signers – problematic. xi. sensitizing to issue and LSJI idea are positive involvements. xii. authority lies in moral suasion – each ministry would have to exercise due diligence and provide contact. xiii. issue could be used as teaching tool (ex: Global or Social Studies) – provide educational materials / resources for presenting both sides – basis for learning. xiv. this provides an opportunity for sharing and exchanging ideas and insights – illustration of how complex an advocacy cause can be. 9. General Reports a. District Council – Br. Jack Curran i. Mission and Ministry Report by Alan Weyland ii. Property updates and Praesidium Report by Br. Joe Juliano iii. Financial Report by Br. Timothy Froehlich iv. Ministry Report by Br. Dennis Malloy v. Formation and Vocation Report by Br. Charles Kitson vi. Report on Senior Brothers by Br. Ed Phelan vii. Requests for Affiliation and Benefaction b. Financial Reports - Alan Weyland i. Report on FY 2015-2016. ii. Report on FY 2016-2017. Ministry Assessment Budget and DENA Apostolate Fund. iii. Motion: That the Ministry Assessment Budget for FY 2016-2017 of $260,000 be approved. (Mancabelli / Logan). - Approved unanimously. iv. Motion: That the Operating Budget for FY 2016-2017 be approved. (Harr / Fales) – Approved unanimously. c. Discerning Ministries - tabled until tomorrow. d. Meeting adjourned at 4:57 pm.

Tuesday 03 May

1. Meeting convened at 8:40 am with Prayer – Maryann Donohue-Lynch 2. Discerning Ministries: a. Saint John Paul II Academy – Alan Weyland. Progress is being made despite internal challenges this past year (no principal and death of campus minister). Commitment to process is evident with Lasallian indices in place. Conversations with Diocesan Superintendent and Evaluators of Administrators. Mr. Edward Bernot (LLI graduate) has been hired as the next Principal. b. Trinity High School – Maryann Donohue-Lynch. Tabled due to arrival of Seton Education Partners presenters. Later reported that they are moving forward. 3. Seton Education Partners (SEP) Initiative a. Presenters: Stephanie Saroki de Garcia (Managing Director and Co-Founder of SEP) and Paul Avvento (Director of Religious Program – El Camino). The session intended to bring Council Members up to date on the status of this initiative and afford Members the opportunity to ask questions and deepen their insights on this possible partnership. A 10 page background / informational material was presented using the Washington, D.C. area for the Catholic School as it was found that the Philadelphia area did not present a favorable setting. The following are points raised during this session and must be viewed in the context of the 10 page document presented. i. autonomy – SEP would not do a school that is unionized as hiring/firing of staff is up to school leader and some have parental input / involvement in this process. It is a school responsibility. Flexibility is key. ii. the mission piece plays a big part in the interview process. iii. after school programs are included. The religious program – El Camino – is an important element. iv. professional preparation of faculty is important as is certification – takes state mandates into account. No research shows connection between certification and effective teaching. v. very important is the teacher mind-set and ability to interact with children. Effectiveness with young people on a practical level is key and prospective teacher must do a presentation in a classroom setting before being hired -importance of practical. vi. SEP wants to operate in states / areas favorable to its thrust / programs. vii. References pp. 2 (D.C. PUBLIC EDUCATION SNAPSHOT) & 3 (D.C. CHARTER MARKET / PROJECTED GROWTH). In regard to p. 3 – 44% of D.C.'s public school children are educated in charters and 23% in private, independent schools. 1. lessons have been learned from conversion of Catholic Schools to Charter Schools – in general, not favorable to such an action. viii. Reference p. 4 (PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS ENROLLED IN CHARTER SCHOOLS / STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT: ALL STUDENTS). 1. in regard to number choosing, much depends on favorable setting. Notice % choosing in areas like DC, Detroit, and New Orleans. 2. importance of “authorizer” in the process. DC authorizer is open to closing “failing charters.” ix. Reference p. 5 (FRM (Federal Reduced Price Meal Program) STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT. 1. notice 13% difference in composite student proficiency for FRM -eligible students between DCPS (Public Schools) and Charter Schools. 2. benchmark – state test goal is 100%. 3. on average, Charter Schools provide better preparation. 4. grade levels Pre-K (3 & 4 yr. olds) to Grade 12; also Adult Education Charters. 5. 1% of funding in DC goes to “authorizer.” 6. in NY, one charter can have multiple campuses. SUNY and State Department of Education are “authorizers.” x. Reference p. 6 (CHARTER MARCH OF QUALITY / $$ FOR D.C. CHARTERS). 1. CMO = Charter Management Organization – increases quality across the board. 2. there are over 100 Charter Schools in D.C. 3. 38 charters closed because of 1) financial failing and 2) poor academic performance. 4. in D.C., charters have a 15 year term but are examined every 5 years. 5. in D.C. and NY there is facilities funding. 6. ELL (English Language Learners) / SPED (Special Education). 7. Charter School Board hires SEP and Executive Director to execute plan, SEP vets staff and hires School Leader(s) who is responsible for program / staff. 8. Board (ideally 7 people) composed of 2 SEP + 2 DENA appointees + $ Person-Contributor + Local Community Representative + Professional (Lawyer/Real Estate Agent/ Business Person). Board would be decided by SEP & DENA together. xi. Following comments were made within context of bottom - p. 6 : 1. school, ie Board and School Leader, communicates program to “authorizer.” 2. school – autonomy in exchange for authority. 3. some services are provided by state where eligible but where this is possible, but sensitivity that nothing contrary to Church teaching is permitted; school makes final decision regarding available state services. xii. Reference p. 7 (SETON MODEL / SUSTAINABILITY). 1. important: predominantly low-income Latino demographic in focused DC area. 2. important: Pre-K to 8th grade (but if started near San Miguel, then could stop at 5th) 3. start with kindergarten and 1st grade, grow a level at a time. 4. sustainable on public dollars by year 3. 5. influences: need for quiet / examen time (Jesuit influence); Catholic inspired – background of virtues; adult formation within charter (Catholic inspired). 6. after-school faith formation key; funding for other after-school programs comes from state / public sector where available and permissible. 7. lease agreement is important – charter should use lease. 8. low-radar approach – there are risks – however being transparent and up-front approach would circumvent parochial forces. 9. one out of four charters are on church / religious properties. 10.importance of researching neighborhood (3-6 months fact- finding), demographic, community. 11.Charter School can only serve students from the area from which it has received its charter. 12.mixed income school is desirable – socio-economic diversity.

Break: 10:12 – 10:18 am

Discussion resumes with reference – p. 7 (SUSTAINABILITY) 13.find a below market facility for program. 14.no fund-raising except to start new school. 15.need to raise money for faith-based program is challenging; most money raised is from non-Catholic donors; there are national groups willing to fund charter institutions; possible resource in D.C. - Catholic Charities. 16.would not touch donor base of San Miguel and St. John's College H.S. Sensitivity to these two D.C. institutions. 17.there tends to be attrition in middle school grades taking local culture into account. xiii. Reference p. 8 (WHAT COULD A PARTNERSHIP LOOK LIKE?: Seton perspective / Christian Brothers perspective). 1. add to Christian Brothers perspective: Contract with someone to do 3-6 month “on the ground” work. 2. bullet: “Ensure a strong Catholic identity for after-school program” - in particular El Camino model – great LV possibility. 3. biggest opposition is usually Superintendent of Schools. 4. initial contact with Ordinary of the Diocese is very important. 5. Seton Teaching Fellows program is based on LV and Vincentian Volunteer programs. 6. person can teach in school during the day and then in after-school program – good transition – allows teacher to get to know students very well. 7. school day ends at 3:10 pm – from 3:10-3:35 pm=homework support. Snack period followed by 2 classes: Sports/Phys Ed with different emphasis each day (ex: Pure Sport / Dance Class / Martial Arts) and Religion program (45 minutes each). 8. El Camino (religion program) has 2 goals: 1st: Love God / 2nd: Develop Mind, Body, Soul in religious context. 9. after-school classes are usually 12-20 in size based on grade level; the smaller the size, the better. 10.thinking of piloting a morning (rather than an after-school) faith formation that would begin at 7:30 / 7:45 with breakfast. School provides breakfast. $20 a week for one child / $30 a week if there is also a sibling. 11.also like to serve non-Catholic family traditions 12. El Camino covers sacrament preparation but in agreement with pastors of parishes involved. Good content program. 13.middle school after-school program is different from that of earlier grades, more athletic and enrichment type classes with a wider range of activities. xiv. Reference p. 9 (WHAT COULD A PARTNERSHIP LOOK LIKE? - Joint / TIMELINE). 1. what would be financial expectation from DENA over next 2.5 years in terms of bottom line, commitments? 2. splitting costs in whatever way possible – reference is made back to bottom of p. 7 (SUSTAINABILITY) bullet: “Raise $1.2M start-up, not including building.” 3. importance of finding / leasing a low market rate building – much depends on location (can be biggest obstacle). 4. reference to bullet “Connect school with the right local partners.” - can broaden picture of potential financial contributors. 5. SEP would contribute half the cost. 6. need to see a budget with “and/ors.” 7. K-5 uses 80 – 120 sq.ft. per child as base when determining size of edifice that would hold 450 students; ideally a sports facility would be available or else a “closed street” approach would be necessary. 8. reiterate Board composition: 2 DENA + 2 SEP + School Person + Community Person + Lawyer / Real Estate or Business Person. What is important is that they all be committed to the vision / mission. 9. possible Seton Teaching Fellows – Lasallian Volunteer participation / linkage. xv. Reference p. 9 (TIMELINE) 1. earliest possibility of such an opening would be 2018; 2.5 years from conception to launch. 2. refers to “Year 3: School leader fellowship year (KIPP training and residencies)...” KIPP good fit for new school organizational setting – would undergo Lasallian training. xvi. Reference p. 10 (NEXT STEPS/QUESTIONS) 1. bullet: “Decision-making process for Christian Brothers?” - MEC to District Council. SEP Presenters leave.

BREAK: 11:38- 11:45 am.

4. Debriefing of SEP Initiative. a. The following are major points raised in debriefing session: i. right opportunity and opportune personal contacts in D.C. area / possible partnership with Trinity College or Catholic University. ii. FSC's can no longer get involved with “brick and mortar” ventures, need to partner with model utilizing business plan / outlook. iii. opportunity for Lasallian venture, contact program, and LV's. iv. opening a new work “on the margin,” serving the poor and providing a “human and Christian education.” v. going “to the margin” with future possibilities developing a partnership – collaborative effort – Mission Assembly challenge worth exploring. b. concerns: i. Detroit as a possible location (reference – p. 4 “55% of public school students in Detroit are enrolled in Charter Schools.” ii. Liability questions – what happens if young person needs hospitalization? iii. Challenges involved with high school placement. iv. Compartmentalizing evangelization – catechesis relationship – after school. v. Are there any negative ramifications / implications that have to be considered regarding future possibilities? vi. FSC involvement? vii. What is wanted from DENA? Financially? Would seem to be very little. c. Detroit not seen as feasible at this time due to geographic distance. d. for SEP it would be first opportunity to partner with a religious order that has a 300 + year legacy / tradition / rootedness in education; the benefit of our Lasallian “branding.” e. evolving relationships carry a risk, however there is a Lasallian wrap-around. f. we approached them because we wanted to know how we could continue to serve the poor and those “on the margins.” g. importance of “reserve powers” in any such agreement – protection of our reputation. h. this relationship would be more of a “business-type involvement.” i. San Miguel Schools are hard to sustain, they benefit from relationships between wealthy donors and poor in need. A concern vis-a-vis SEP school. j. such an agreement with SEP can serve as a springboard for other relationships. k. school and after-school programs are “breathing out of the same lungs.” l. relationship dynamic in D.C.: San Miguel - new venture. m. guiding principle: not to cause harm, conflict with existing ministries (St. John's College H.S. and San Miguel), concern about fund-raising. n. if program successful, could be replicated elsewhere. o. Seton program is very sustainable, non-profit, mission-based and driven, focused on excellence, vibrant, Lasallian and Jesuit influence evident. p. draft an MOU (Memo Of Understanding) and have DENA attorneys review. q. have SEP draw up an MOU.

Intention is to move forward, develop a workable MOU with financial responsibilities involved. Finance is not an issue - $35,000 for a feasibility study. Refer p. 6 – there is money for D.C. Charters – conditions are favorable. Be sensitive to present two D.C. ministries. $1.2M start up, not including building would be shared by both DENA and SEP. Importance of locating a low market value facility (D.C. alums with real estate knowledge could assist with this).

There would be an electronic vote on the final document.

MOTION: That the District begin a feasibility study that would include a plan with milestones and a draft MOU in partnership with Seton Educational Partners to move this project forward and to spend up to $40,000 as our share of the total estimated cost. (Curran / Harr). Vote: 6-0-1.

5. Expression of Gratitude Jeff Mancabelli was thanked for his seven years of contributory service on the MEC.

Meeting adjourned at 12:43 pm.