Open Book: Building a Legacy for the Book 2 Table of Contents

Preface How this report came to be ...... 4 Lessons of collaboration ...... 5

Chapter 1: Laying the foundation The partners ...... 6 Joining hands: the planning period...... 8 Organizational self-assessment ...... 9 Looking for a home...... 11 Watershed meeting ...... 12 Critical decisions during this phase...... 12 Core values ...... 13

Chapter 2: Designing and building the home Choosing the right property ...... 14 Buying the building...... 14 The capital campaign ...... 15 Design and construction ...... 16 Naming the building ...... 18 Infusing the building with visual art ...... 18 Moving in ...... 19 Critical decisions from this phase ...... 20

Chapter 3: The dream fulfilled, the dream unfolding Developments in the building ...... 24 Changes for the founding partners...... 25 The Loft ...... 25 Milkweed Editions ...... 26 MCBA ...... 27 Status of the collaboration ...... 28

3 Chapter 4: What Open Book teaches about collaboration 1. What was even more important than planning during the planning phase? ...... 30 2. How did leaders use the tight timeframe as an advantage?...... 31 3. What was the link between designing the shared space and defining the collaborative relationships?...... 31 4. How did the dispersed leadership structure work in this case?...... 32 5. How did Open Book partners approach the question of fairness in dealing with the very different needs and concerns of the founding organizations? ...... 33 6. What is instructive about the legal, financial, governance models that provide the framework for Open Book? ...... 34 7. How did the three founding organizations, so different from one another, balance their needs for autonomy and integration? ...... 35 8. What made the case for establishing Open Book so compelling to community members, and is it fulfilling its promise to the community? ...... 36

Chapter 5: The territory ahead Extending the reach ...... 37 Strategic issues for the future ...... 39 The story continues ...... 40

Appendix: People Interviewed ...... 41

Author Bio ...... 42

4 Preface

“A lot of other kinds of arts organizations – whether dance, theater, music – because they perform in halls, they have a sense of place that literature doesn’t have. Performers have theaters. Visual artists have galleries. Literature has nothing. Before anybody had any idea we’d become Open Book, there was this desire for permanence, and this desire for place.”

Open Book is a cultural and artistic center whom this building stands open like a dedicated to the book. It is the first such half-written novel, upon whose blank center in the nation to serve as a gathering pages writers everywhere are invited to place that celebrates the book community continue with the story. and offers programs to inspire participation in reading, writing, and book How this report came to be arts. This is the Open Book story as told from Open Book opened its doors in the spring the perspective of those most closely of 2000 in three renovated 100-year-old involved. Founders of Open Book wanted buildings at the eastern edge of downtown the chance to commit to the page their Minneapolis. Outside, the extraordinary shared journey and to take neighborhood surges with the time to examine where it has led. That redevelopment of the historic chance came when the Wallace Foundation offered support to The Loft mills and warehouses that Open Book is stretch along the Mississippi Literary Center, one of the Open Book River. Inside, light suffuses the first such founders, for such an endeavor. The open, tranquil spaces. Open center in the Loft then partnered with the board of Book’s strong aesthetic nation. Open Book, which hired an includes works by local visual independent organizational consultant to artists and intriguing elements shepherd the process and author the such as fragments of original report. wallpaper and a set of stairs embedded in a wall, now leading nowhere. It is Over a period of months, the author spoke imaginative space. Visitors are warmed by with more than two dozen people who the colors of original brick and shared stories spanning the years from floorboards, by coffee and organic foods 1996 to 2004. These included from the café, and over and over again by representatives of the founding the pleasures of the book. organizations, others who were instrumental in the creation of Open Book, Open Book was born of the dreams and funders, and community members (see daring of three nonprofit organizations Appendix for a list of those interviewed). that joined together to create something Their stories and quotes form the backbone much larger than themselves. This is their of this text. As a narrative inquiry, this story. It is the story of the building that endeavor sought to discern the meaning of became the physical manifestation of their the stories, from the idiosyncracies dedication. And it is the story of a inherent in the case to the universal community committed to literature, for themes of community building. The

5 resulting themes and conclusions were 4. How did the dispersed leadership discussed at two salons, where Open Book structure work in this case? participants further clarified their views and reached a deeper understanding of 5. How did Open Book partners what elements of their story were central approach the question of fairness in to its telling. The result, in a sense, is a dealing with the very different collective organizational autobiography. needs and concerns of the founding organizations? Lessons of collaboration 6. What is instructive about the legal, Telling this story also is an opportunity to financial and governance models consider Open Book as a collaboration. that provide the framework for Nonprofits and businesses live in an Open Book? interconnected world and increasingly look for partners who can help achieve 7. How did the three founding results that they could not achieve on their organizations, so different from one own. When organizations enter into such another, balance their needs for partnerships, they do so with the autonomy and integration? understanding that they will grapple with questions of autonomy, purpose, and 8. What made the case for leadership. They will live through conflicts establishing Open Book so and frustrations, and learn to be flexible, compelling to community members, forgiving, and inventive. and is it fulfilling its promise to the community? In many ways, Open Book’s beginning illustrates these and other classic elements of collaboration theory. In other ways, it To explore these questions, we begin by departs from the well-traveled road. In the jumping back in time to look at the three unfolding of this story the reader will founding organizations, what was on their come upon several wayside rests where minds in 1996, and what made it possible tensions are uncovered, critical decisions for each of them to become part of the articulated, and experiences examined for joint endeavor that would grow into Open what they may teach about collaboration. Book.

We will endeavor to answer these core questions:

1. What was even more important than planning during the planning phase?

2. How did leaders use the tight time frame as an advantage?

3. What was the link between designing the shared space and defining the collaborative relationships?

6 Chapter 1: Laying the foundation

The Partners

“I thought we could create a physical building that was an outward manifestation of the grace and power of literature.”

Open Book’s three founding partners are writing groups; mentoring programs for The Loft Literary Center, Milkweed emerging authors; conferences, festivals, Editions and Minnesota Center for Book and publications for writers and readers; Arts. Located at different points along the family literacy activities; and grants, continuum of the literary arts, they engage fellowships, and professional development with authors and artists to create good opportunities for accomplished authors. writing and beautiful books. Their After beginning in a bookstore, the Loft programs and purposes are distinctive, but had several homes, including an old house they have important things in common. near the University of Minnesota, a former Each works to uplift the written word as church, and a 100-year-old former art and to promote the expression of elementary school. individual creativity. They also are passionately committed to literature as a Executive Director Linda Myers came to social good, a tool for the free exchange of the Loft in 1994, at a time when the ideas so fundamental to democracy. In an burgeoning literary center was 20 years era of declining readership and reduced old and in serious need of a facility funding for the arts, they each searched strategy. Administrative Director Nancy for ways to make literature and book arts Gaschott thought at the time, “The Loft more visible in the community and to had an opportunity to be a great reinforce the book’s position as community center, a community-building indispensable in people’s lives. place on many levels.” With a membership of 1,500 and an additional 50,000 people served annually, the restrictions imposed by the school building were unworkable. “People sat on third grader chairs, and we lived month to month with the fear that The Loft Literary Center, founded in 1974 we could be ejected at any time.” When in a loft above a Minneapolis bookstore, is Linda arrived, she began to ask questions now the nation’s largest and most not only about the Loft’s future, but about comprehensive independent literary arts the future of literature more broadly. She center. For nearly 30 years, the Loft’s began to imagine partnering with others to mission has been “to foster a writing create something lasting. “If communion is community, the artistic development of the outward manifestation of an inward individual writers, and an audience for grace,” Linda reflects, “I thought we could literature.” The Loft offers more than 350 create a physical building that was an creative writing classes each year for outward manifestation of the grace and people of all ages and experience levels; power of literature.” The seeds of Open readings, spoken word performances, and Book were beginning to germinate. author events; book discussions and

7 the idea of a facility shared with other literary groups. “I could see everything to be gained by making an alliance like this,” recalls Emilie, “instead of being in our own private bailiwick.” Milkweed Editions is currently the nation’s largest independent nonprofit literary press, and has had a readership of almost two million people since it was founded in 1979. Its mission is unique among independent literary presses: “to make a humane impact on society through Minnesota Center for Book Arts, or transformative literature.” Milkweed MCBA, was the relative youngster among Editions publishes 12-20 books each year the three organizations. It was formed in in the categories of fiction, nonfiction, 1983 by a group of local book lovers who juvenile fiction, and poetry. Milkweed is wanted to foster enthusiasm for the book one of few nonprofit literary presses to as a contemporary art form. MCBA’s artist publish children’s books. A second area of cooperative offered 24-hour access to specialty is Milkweed’s “The World as papermaking, bookbinding, and Home” program, which publishes printmaking equipment. Courses and nonfiction that explores the relationship workshops for students of all ages, between people and the natural world. residencies in schools, and statewide exhibitions provided a showcase for local The press had occupied a variety of artists as well as highlighting the cramped spaces over the years, and by the importance of book art for a wide range of mid-1990’s found itself increasingly audiences. In 1996 it was serving more concerned about escalating rents. Founder than 20,000 people and had about 700 Emilie Buchwald was still at the helm as members. publisher and editor in chief. Milkweed had only a few years remaining on a lease Despite a strong evolution in its programs, in the warehouse district of Minneapolis MCBA had struggled with finances and and expected a 52 percent increase in rent staff leadership in the mid-1990s. When when the lease expired. A search for board chair Jay Cowles stepped in as comparable spaces revealed that any interim executive director in 1996, MCBA similar office would be likely to cost at began to seriously explore “rescue least 30% more. This triggered a series of alternatives.” Merger negotiations with explorations through which Milkweed another nonprofit were attempted, but fell hoped to figure out how to interact with through. MCBA anticipated a rent the world in new ways—through increase of at least 100% when its current teaching, developing new partnerships, warehouse district lease expired in 2003, connecting with colleges, being more but the prospects of moving were visible. Emilie was convinced, “If you’re a daunting. Besides having complicated literary nonprofit and want to make a space needs for its specialized equipment, difference, you want to let people know why and how you are publishing, and then involve them.” By 1996 she was having conversations with the Loft and Minnesota Center for Book Arts to explore

8 MCBA had not resolved what programs to establish a home for literature. Twenty- would create a strong financial base and two organizations came and went over the what level of growth would ensure months, but MCBA, Milkweed, and the survival. Jay remembers of that time, Loft remained at the table. For them, there “MCBA still had several years on our was a compelling convergence between lease. And to some extent we were tired, the power of the dream and each dealing with binding our wounds, and organization’s aspirations and needs. They making progress internally through all our began to see how, by creating an alliance near-death experiences.” MCBA needed to with one another, they could create “a find a realistic solution that could infuse unified case for literature,” as they the organization with renewed energy and describe it, “from inspiration and optimism. It was at about this time that inception to publication and distribution— the Loft’s Linda Myers invited Jay to the book as idea, as well as the book as lunch. artifact.”

Linda credits the wisdom of a large gathering of constituents with the first real Joining hands: the planning period vision of what would become Open Book. As part of its 1994 strategic planning “It was about discovering what didn’t work, process, the Loft had brought together and what hadn’t been done.” more than 100 people in a “future search” process. Stakeholders included writers, As yet, however, no one had defined what grantmakers, publishers, librarians, such an alliance would look like. In the fall teachers, Loft staff and board members, of 1996, the Loft, MCBA, and Milkweed National Endowment for the Arts recognized that if serious progress was to representatives, and many others. When be made, additional resources and time invited to imagine how commitments would be necessary. the Loft might best fulfill They applied for and received its mission to serve planning funds totaling $55,000 literature, an from four local foundations: overwhelming number of Jerome, General Mills, McKnight, those gathered and Bush. “That was a remarkable articulated a vision of a expression of the great arts funding permanent home. They in this town,” says one partner, pictured not only “that there’s money for serious classrooms, but common exploration of major alternatives.” spaces, a café, elements that would draw people The grants initiated a period of in. They imagined a day intense and focused activity when literature would between the summer of 1997 and have a greater presence late 1998, during which time and stature in the community. working groups of board and staff moved from theoretical discussions to practical On the strength of this expressed interest, and concrete scenarios. They developed the Loft initiated a series of community plans for finance, governance, fundraising, conversations with other literary groups. and staffing. They hired a team of People from all parts of the literary consultants to research models of shared spectrum talked about what they might do arts facilities, and learned that what they

9 envisioned did not exist anywhere else. time, this made the striders terribly They prepared a case statement. They frustrated. conducted focus groups to discover what others would value in a gathering place for literature. Later on, they hired real Organizational self-assessment estate developer Chuck Leer and architect Garth Rockcastle, who began to evaluate “None of them could afford mistakes.” properties for lease or purchase. Nancy Gaschott, administrative director for the It would be hard to overstate the Loft, played a crucial leadership role by difficulties of this period. The three developing agendas and chairing meetings organizations were at quite different of the joint work group. stages in their own development. Staff changes brought in new perspectives The planning period midstream. With no clear guiding image of held many the resulting model, partners remained frustrations. One Creative tension: vigilant about preserving their own observer wondered The partners had to identities. Like many collaborative at the time whether make a convincing partners, Open Book participants were it was “too case to others unearthing tensions that could either thorough—with so while still defining derail their efforts or result in creative much attention to solutions. it for themselves. detail. Were they One such tension of this time was that the planning forever as a organic nature of forming the new entity way to avoid hard required the partners to make a decisions?” Another convincing case to others while still recalls that it was not a satisfying process: defining it for themselves. The three “It was about discovering what didn’t organizations differed in their readiness to work and hadn’t been done. I’m not sure commit their organizations to the joint we called the questions hard enough or venture. “Even though you had three were able to develop really clear extremely motivated players, they [each] scenarios.” had unique worries,” recalls one observer. “None of them could afford mistakes.” Most critical of all, the planning period The Loft felt sure of this direction, but the revealed the different assumptions in the other two organizations had specific and minds of the participants. Some entered immediate worries that required self- into planning as a signal of solid assessment and internal discussion. Would commitment. For others, it was a a joint venture substantially advance their structured exploration of the possibility of mission? Would it make economic sense? commitment. So while some people were What were the assumptions about and ready to stride ahead, others took hesitant implications for growth? side steps and looked over their shoulders for perhaps a different route. From time to These questions required careful study, and in two cases new players on the scene brought a healthy skepticism to the process. Milkweed hired Sid Farrar as its executive director in the fall of 1996, some months before planning funds were secured. New to the literary community at the time, Sid recalls sharing in the

10 excitement about the vision, but “I had the emergency. I had to either negotiate a new All of this took time to determine, and lease or find new space. For me it was detailed board deliberations were required. economic—we weren’t looking for any As more established enterprises, the Loft kind of public space.” The idea of a and Milkweed were not facing these gathering place for literature, while developmental growing pains. charming, was not essential to the They recognized that they publisher’s mission. As Sid puts it, “I had to give MCBA time, loved the idea, but I had to be careful Creative tension: but urgently wished the not to get so dazzled that I lost sight of Both visionaries process would move our situation.” MCBA also changed its and pragmatists faster. top leadership. For over a year it had were required, but operated with board chair Jay Cowles their differing Conflict among people in the position of interim executive perspectives could with differing director and Linda Johnson serving as cause misunder- proclivities and skills managing director. Linda was standings and was another tension of instrumental in stabilizing MCBA’s frustrations. this time. The complexities operations and in planning for the of the proposed alliance alliance. Then, in the fall of 1997, Peggy required both visionaries and Korsmo-Kennon was hired as MCBA’s pragmatists. Their differing perspectives executive director, with the dual charge to could cause misunderstandings and assure MCBA’s future and to consider the frustrations. Partners had to quell their wisdom of the alliance. She recalls Open own impatience and learn to respect each Book being presented to her as a other’s points of view. Linda Myers possibility, but something that was “down emphasizes this: “You have to have the the road.” Understanding MCBA as a people who see the possibility, who then separate entity had to come first. “Up until partner with the people who have the that time, there wasn’t a strategic plan,” know how. The dreamers couldn’t begin she recalls. There was no infrastructure to do the implementation, step by step by about how we operated as an step.” organization, or policies about determining programs. There was no A third tension of this time was the need document you could go to and say, ‘Oh, for each organization to sort out the effects here are the goals of the organization, and of an alliance on its identity. How would Open Book is a perfect way to meet those they maintain their distinctiveness and not goals.’” The board and Peggy conducted a be swallowed up in a group identity? risk assessment and created a strategic Would the joint entity do its own plan. They wanted MCBA programming? If so, how could it enhance to be an organization rather than compete with each that took risks, organization’s programs? How would a Creative tension: “because that’s how capital fund drive affect individual The search for growth happens, but fundraising efforts? How would being in integration had to to know they were more public space impact their mission be balanced by the good, calculated and day-to-day operations? Would each legitimate need of risks.” In the end, it continue with separate marketing efforts? each organization was clear that Open The search for integration had to be to preserve its Book represented a balanced by the legitimate need of each autonomy. significant organization to preserve its autonomy. opportunity.

11 Looking for a home one another. They were still debating whether to rent, buy, or build. They were “You got hit by the sunlight!” unclear what their space needs would be, in particular what kind of joint or public The planning phase was characterized by space to design. This may be it, they said, both internal self-assessment and, but keep looking. Chuck assessed 36 simultaneously, joint work to create plans properties over the next several months. for the as-yet-undefined future. If indeed As summer arrived, 1011 Washington was the three groups could agree to live still in the running and had generated together, they would need a home. While some excitement among the partners. But the organizations worked on self- no decision had been made. assessment, developer Chuck Leer and architect Garth Rockcastle set out to find and evaluate possible locations. Watershed meeting

The first property Chuck considered was “We can do this.” 1011 Washington, the location that would ultimately become Open Book. He was The Loft finally called the question in July convinced it was just what the partners of 1998. The setting was Hosmer Library, a were looking for. Chuck beams, recalling small public library in South Minneapolis. his first exposure to the building: “As I’m In preparation, the Loft’s Nancy Gaschott walking through the building, it was dark. had created financial projections based on There was only light coming through a the advice of many others in the few cracks. One of the fun things about community. They included an estimate of the building the first few times going the amount of money the group might be through it was the third floor was able to raise, what the development costs completely dark—except for a door in the were likely to be, and how the cost of back of the building, facing the operations might change for the Metrodome in downtown, that you could organizations. Even though the projections open up. And on a sunny day like today were preliminary, presenting concrete the rush of light into the building was just scenarios helped participants move past overpowering. You got hit by the the theoretical stage with some confidence. sunlight!” It was the Loft’s board chair, Chris Mahai, who helped the group turn the corner Chuck’s enthusiasm was not matched by from protracted discussion to decision. the hesitant partners, however. They Chris recalls asking each person present to hadn’t made what they considered firm put his or her cards on the table: commitments to

12 “I kept hearing worry, worry, worry. who would wear the public face of Open People kept saying, ‘Can we do this?’ So Book. Jay Cowles and Chris Mahai were after they’d all finished I said, ‘I’m going to chosen to co-chair the capital campaign, use those same four words, but in a and Jay later became the first chair of the different order: We can do this.’” Open Book board. Chris and Jay brought to the project business acumen, broad This was the watershed moment. community connections, a commitment to Founding partners remember it clearly. the vision, and an infectious can-do One marks the Hosmer meeting as the attitude. Both had a history of support for time “when we the literary arts. They actually formed the were potent and visible partnership that had civic leaders who had been loosely formed the ability to convey the for the study.” vision of Open Book, Another recalls, “It and to give those was a turning point. around them confidence That’s when our board that it would become a said, OK, we’re doing reality. Many observers it. I didn’t know where identify their leadership we were going to live, as a crucial factor in or how. But at this point I knew I had to Open Book’s ability to navigate the find solutions; we were not going to back nuances and stresses of functioning as a out.” A third person present that day formal collaboration. remembers Chris’ confidence as catalytic: “I thought, if Chris Mahai says we can do Commitment of human resources this, I’m on board. Out of that came the After the Hosmer meeting, serious three organizations who, as I like to say, consideration had to be given to stood on the end of those steps up there determining who could carry out the that don’t go anywhere, and leapt off.” enormous amount of work ahead. The partners recognized the need for a core group of staff and consultants, and used Critical decisions during this phase funds raised by Open Book to cover those costs. Collaborations often fail to provide Making a firm decision at the Hosmer adequate staff and resources for planning Library meeting catalyzed the group. They and development. For Open Book, having began to prepare what they needed to do dedicated staff was essential to its success. to buy the building.With the remaining planning money, they hired a local firm to Although Open Book did not need an do a feasibility study for the capital executive director, it did need a full time campaign. By late fall they made an offer “transition director” who would on the building. The partners’ ability to coordinate all aspects of the renovation, move forward rapidly in the following from planning board agendas and months was based on several critical managing cash flow to representing Open decisions made during the planning phase. Book with the architect, the general contractor, and the city. Nancy Gaschott Strategic leadership choices reduced her hours as administrative The founding organizational partners director for the Loft and stepped into the were strategic in their choice of leaders eye of the storm to take on that full time

13 job. Brian Malloy, the Loft’s development three founding organizations would be director, managed the institutional giving tenants, and the asset of the building portion of the capital campaign. would reside in that fourth entity. Independent consultant Drew Stewart was hired to design and oversee the This decision was fundamental to Open capital campaign and also to assist each Book’s ultimate success, according to organization in developing realistic developer Chuck Leer. “People have sort financial projections. Consultants and of forgotten this, but there was a strong volunteers provided other services, such as current that it was foolhardy for a legal advice, events planning, and nonprofit to buy real estate. It was much marketing help. Open Book planners were more prudent to simply rent. Then you attuned to the range of technical expertise didn’t have as much exposure or liability; they needed and diligent in seeking it out. you could cut your losses. It goes back to risk aversion.” The founding partners Ownership were willing to accept the risk of Open Book partners had to decide ownership in exchange for long-term whether to buy, build, or rent. They control over affordable space specifically formed a working committee of board designed for book and literary arts members from each organization to programming. examine the practical, financial, legal, and structural implications of the decision. Core values After studying many options, the committee proposed the formation of a As partners worked together, they were new 501(c)3. Its specific and limited doing more than setting agendas, solving purpose was to own and operate facilities problems, and accomplishing tasks. They for the furtherance of literary and book also were establishing ways of working arts. The planners hoped that ownership that reflected their values. Five core values, by a nonprofit would permit the building while tacit rather than explicit, provided to be exempt from property taxes, a major consistent guidance in the development of operating expense, for that portion of the Open Book: building devoted to nonprofit tenants. The • Absolute commitment to success. The partners operated from the core value that the establishment of Open Book was so important to the community that it simply could not fail. When faced with barriers or setbacks, they did not compromise the project to solve them.

• Equity. Partner organizations had unique needs, and each was critical to the success of the whole. Open Book provided different kinds and levels of resources to each partner to resolve potential barriers to participation.

14 • Relationships as the organizing principle. Partners did not sacrifice relationships to get something accomplished more quickly. They approached one another authentically, listened to one another, and exhibited patience.

• Comprehensive planning. Partners were resolute about taking whatever time was necessary to plan thoroughly, examine options, ask for advice, and create scenarios that helped make choices concrete.

• Aesthetics. The partners’ appreciation for the beauty of literature extended to other art forms. They were intentional in the use of ritual, symbolism, and physical artifacts to enrich their lives and space.

15 Chapter 2: Designing and building the home

Choosing the right property Committing to the property required a significant leap of faith. “Is this guy crazy?” Partners had to approve a site without a The three contiguous 19th century clear sense of its potential to provide what commercial buildings were painted a they wanted and needed. They visited the battleship gray. Across the street property on many occasions, as did from a liquor store and next architect Garth Rockcastle, who tried to to similarly boarded up help them envision what this space structures, the 55,000 could become. One of the partners square feet of space Creative tension: remembers “standing in this horrible, might have been Partners had to gutted building that we had considered uninspiring. commit to a decided to buy. Garth was looking But many of the around full of his vision, speaking partners believed that building without in glowing terms about this such a raw space a clear sense of its wonderful space. I looked around provided an opening: it potential to and saw a pit and thought, is this needed imagination, provide what guy crazy? God, I hope he’s good.” the very thing on which the literary community they wanted and thrives. It also was needed. Buying the building humble. One partner recalls, “One of the big worries “This would serve us all, in the book community was that we and survive us all. ” were going to get too fancy. This is a low- budget arts crowd. We knew (whatever The owner of 1011 Washington was Scott building we chose) shouldn’t be new and Tankenoff, managing partner of Hillcrest shiny.” 1011 Washington was not. Development. Scott had worked with many nonprofits in the past, and believes The site was midway between downtown that they “have a higher sense of purpose and the West Bank campus of the than business clients. They have a lot of University of Minnesota, on a stretch of people believing in them. Without that, under-developed land that followed the they’d grind to a halt.” When Chuck Leer Mississippi riverfront through the old flour asked Scott to show the three partners the milling district that had been the property, Scott was immediately struck birthplace of Minneapolis. Several of those with the importance of what they were involved in the planning knew that a trying to do. However, they were still in resurgence of development was coming to the early stages of decision making. About this part of the downtown area, with its this time, Scott received another offer on historic mill structures. The value of the the buildings. He remembers Chuck saying property would only go up. But at the over the phone, “This is going to be (the moment, little was there but windblown right location), in my opinion, but it will parking lots. take time. I can’t ask you to hold the property off the market—but I am asking.”

16 Scott decided to wait. He recalls that he The capital campaign held the property for Open Book “for as long as it took for us to get our finances “There’s no such thing as ‘a capital together, which was much longer than campaign.’ It’s really fifty or a anyone ever should have done.” hundred little campaigns.”

At that time, the group had nothing—no Open Book had used the last of the money, no construction loan, and no planning grant money to have a local firm identified prospects. The board put conduct a feasibility study for its together a financial case and took it to fundraising effort. But the board was not some banks. The convinced that the resulting prediction of reception was cool. $4.5-$5 million reflected what they could Then came their visit do. All three organizations had long- to Riverside, a smaller standing relationships with funders and neighborhood bank. loyal, if not large, groups of individual Paul Lillenthal and donors. They also knew that they simply Dave Cleveland had to raise more—their costs would be “have an instinct for higher, and contingencies unpredictable. good nonprofit They decided to set the goal at $5.5 work,” saw the million. One observer recalls, “That was a potential in the gutsy move. They could have dropped the building, and had plant reserve fund, but they didn’t. They faith in the leaders set it at five and a half and never looked and the mission. In a back. So that was a critical moment. They dramatic moment of did not compromise the project as a Open Book’s history, it was Dave who proposed answer.” issued the challenge: Provide some personal pledges. Go find the first dozen Open Book embarked on its campaign at a major donors. Then come back for a loan. fortuitous time. The Twin Cities has a strong tradition of community support for “This galvanized us,” recounts one a variety of artistic disciplines. In 1999, the member of the fundraising team. It forced economy was still strong. There was a lull us to deal with it on a very constricted in the arts fundraising market. “We had a time frame and…catapulted us into the relatively undistracted audience,” one campaign.” Within a month, they had partner recalls. The Walker had not raised over a million dollars. On November launched its campaign. The Guthrie made 18, 1998, they bought the building at a its decision to locate on the riverfront very favorable price. Both Hillcrest during the middle of the Open Book Development and the Tankenoff family campaign, “which only lent more later became financial supporters of Open credibility to our vision for the Book. Scott derives great satisfaction from neighborhood.” All of these factors created having made this deal. As he explains, a community context in which “the stars “This [real estate development] is also really were aligned for this project.” about giving back to the community. Especially for the literary community, and Drew Stewart was responsible for especially in light of school budget structuring the capital campaign. There problems, this would serve us all, and was no fundraising mechanism at the survive us all. “ time—no staff, office, database, or

17 volunteer core. Open Book rented office space and hired an administrator. Teams of volunteers were created and systems devised to track their responsibilities and progress. Early on, 100% of board members made contributions. (By the end of the campaign, 96 current and former board members had contributed $1,156,118.) Campaign committee members called on John and Sage Cowles, prominent civic leaders and supporters of MCBA board, participated in many of the arts. They provided the critical those early visits. She thinks of those tours leadership gift that got the campaign as appealing to prospective donors’ sense rolling. of adventure, something like a spelunking expedition might. They managed to clean By the following summer, the individual up one corner of the second floor and campaign was having strong enough bring in chairs. But it was cold, dark, and success to launch the foundation and wet. Drew wryly credits Gail’s ever- corporate campaign. Drew reflects on the present thermos of hot coffee with “a few complexity of the effort. “There is no such hundred thousand in gifts.” thing as ‘a campaign.’ It’s really fifty or a hundred little campaigns, for the top fifty or one hundred gifts. Each foundation Design and construction would be its own campaign and it would take a year or two in itself, beginning to “Unwrapping the building revealed a end. It was very carefully orchestrated. narrative in architecture.” That’s the nature of campaigns.” The first conception of the building design Part of the orchestration was figuring out in the partners’ minds was fairly how to convey to prospective supporters straightforward: each organization would the uniqueness of Open Book. Individuals occupy one of the three connected and foundation representatives were buildings, with its own three floors. Doors invited to tour the raw space. MCBA could be opened between the buildings to board member Tom Hoch helped prepare enable easy interchange and possible for one such tour: “When we first shared activities or infrastructure. acquired the building, I was over there on a Saturday stringing up icicle lights. It Architect Garth Rockcastle recognized looked pretty that this concept stemmed from the desire awful; it was really to preserve each organization’s autonomy. dirty,” he laughs to But he knew how different each recall. “I was on my organization’s spatial needs were and saw little ladder other interesting possibilities in the stringing up icicle buildings. One day he met with the lights to make it partners and recommended turning that look interesting, so idea on its side, literally: the original we could bring buildings would be dramatically opened people through.” up to each other, and each organization Gail See, also on the would occupy a single floor. He had

18 brought along a small model to help them Book. MCBA was in the throes of re- visualize such a design. inventing itself while trying to foresee what spaces would be required for new Garth recalls, “I could feel a palpable programmatic thrusts. difference in the room. They could see the benefits of function, symbolism, and Partners often were caught between dynamism.” Milkweed would have the extreme time pressures and the need to third floor, because it had the least need respect each other’s different decision- for public space. MCBA needed to be on making needs. MCBA’s decision-making the ground floor and in the basement due pace was a source of frequent frustration. to the weight of its presses. The Loft would Its organizational needs required a occupy the second floor and, in exchange prolonged, detailed decision-making for giving up some first floor visibility, process that was poorly understood by the would have a spacious living room others. “We just wanted it decided so outside its offices. Public spaces we could move on,” one partner would exist on all three levels. Creative tension: recalls. “But none of us A coffee shop and lobby on The architect’s understood how complex this the first floor would vision, and the was. In hindsight, [Peggy welcome visitors. A emergent historical Korsmo-Kennon] did absolutely performance hall and narrative of the the right thing. She had to classrooms on the second building, advocate for her floor, and a book club room continually required organization.” on the third, would be partners to decide available for joint events and questions of cost, The building itself also began to rental to other groups. A practical use, and make demands on the partners. dynamic flow through the aesthetics. Architects Garth Rockcastle and building was assured. The partners Kate Bergquist were excited about agreed. the parallels between the physical building and the future occupants’ interest Then came the detailed analysis of how in stories. “Unwrapping the building each organization’s space should be revealed a narrative in architecture,” designed. The Loft and Milkweed had Garth explains, “traces of earlier uncomplicated needs for office and occupations and uses that could become classroom space, but MCBA’s needs were embodied in the new building.” As very complex, specific, and unusual. Their intriguing fragments were uncovered, they presses weigh a ton apiece. They needed became potential design elements: a safe, a structural support for trays of heavy type dumbwaiter, painted lettering on what and a beater room with floor drains and had been an exterior brick wall, a sinks. Each organization’s needs for public staircase, sliding steel doors. Garth and private space, and its vision for how advocated using as many of these elements the two would intersect, were different. as possible.

The three also were moving at different This resulted in a new creative tension: his paces and feeling different pressures. image of the building’s potential, along Milkweed had to vacate its leased space as with its emergent historical narrative, soon as possible. The Loft was functioning continually required the partners to decide with reduced staff because of Nancy questions of cost, practical use, and Gaschott’s full time commitment to Open aesthetics. The architects’ vision made the

19 partners stretch, generally with wonderful The name results. However, they had to retain itself was authority over what would work for them ideal practically and aesthetically. Negotiating because it these decisions often was time-consuming evoked not and emotional. only the mission of Strikingly, the time frame between opening building purchase and moving in was only up 16 months. Partners recall both the literature stimulation provided by the urgency and and book the exhaustion. They refer to creation, their stance as “expedition but also an open center where people behavior.” Many things could wander through and feel it was Creative tension: had to be done at once, their own. A “namebreaking” ceremony in Participants were conditions could change May 1999 announced the Open Book to caught between instantly, and new the public. extreme time problems emerged on a pressures and the daily basis. As one need to respect person put it, “You Infusing the building with visual art each other’s can’t do it without different decision people who go beyond “The artists were so proud, and overjoyed making needs. all reason to make that their work would be seen by something happen.” thousands of people for years to come.”

Major design elements brought to life the Naming the building metaphoric richness of the new name. Bricked up windows and skylights were “We had a process that allowed opened, bringing natural light into public everyone to get in on it.” spaces. Ceiling-high glass doors fashioned to look like book covers were installed at The process of naming the building was the entrance to MCBA. emblematic of Open Book’s commitment to Salvaged windows community. When leaders established the were built into walls legal structure, they had settled on the and overlook interior cumbersome name of Minnesota Book and spaces. These design Literary Arts Building. They later hired a elements create a sense firm to help them come up with a more of spaciousness and fitting name. Nametag International connectedness among interviewed hundreds of constituents from the organizations. The the three organizations and the book metaphor also community. One person recalls, “It was was evoked in the the way in which, in addition to giving design of a central money, we had a process that allowed staircase by sculptor everyone to get in on it, to feel consulted, and MCBA instructor to think about what you wanted it to Karen Wirth; the steel spiral structure stand for.” connects luminescent acrylic “pages” on which words are inscribed. Doors

20 salvaged from the high and people tired, the group faced a old buildings were significant test. crafted into a distinctive wall and Sid Farrar had already gotten one doorways to temporary extension of Milkweed’s lease, writers’ studios. but the landlord was not willing to grant a second. Milkweed could only afford the Open Book also expense of moving once. With its lease sought to infuse expiring in a matter of weeks, Sid feared visual artistry in he would have to give up the collaborative the practical, and effort and move elsewhere. Rather than often small, details of the building. A allow this to happen, Open Book provided regional competition through the Jerome campaign funds to Milkweed to move into Foundation selected a variety of artists to temporary space. Sid recalls, “We were in create both functional and expressive this horrible space for nearly a year. It had pieces. They were given a tour of the no windows, and we were crammed in. space under construction and invited to The heating system was very bad. We take advantage of scrap lumber, windows, found out that one of our upstairs foundation stones, tin ceiling tiles, and neighbors was a gold plating business. At other materials found on site. Resulting regular intervals they would start projects include a children’s reading grinding, and it sounded like a bowling bench, stone tables inscribed with words ball rolling across the floor.” Trying as that and quotes, delicate paintings on the period was, it preserved Milkweed’s doors to the writers’ studios, photographs, participation in the collaboration. and a history of the alphabet carved into the floors throughout the building. These When Milkweed was finally able to move and many other visual elements are much into Open Book on February 26, 2000, the more than decorative flourishes; they elevator was not yet installed. A crane was carry out the mission of the building by used to move honoring original artistic expression. furniture in through an upstairs window. Moving in MCBA’s move was equally dramatic “It was extraordinarily thrilling when it moved in to be there, and to see the late March: the transformation.” total weight of the presses alone By the end of 1999 it was clear that the exceeded 10,000 moving date needed to be extended into pounds, and their late March. Windows were delayed. The cabinets of metal elevator would not be ready on time. Negotiations continued over parking. Additional time was needed to fabricate the stairway. MCBA needed help to get out of its existing lease commitment. Then, in the eleventh hour, with stress levels

21 type totaled more than 175,000 pounds. neighborhood surrounding 1011 The Loft also moved in late March. Within Washington. They held discussions and a few days, the organizations were open houses with representatives of relatively settled. libraries, creative writing programs, book clubs, schools, arts organizations, and their own organizations’ constituencies. The Open Book model for successful Emilie Buchwald spoke with writers, collaboration publishers, and literary groups, conveying over and over the Critical decisions from this phase message that the building would be open to their Campaign promises independent use as A striking feature of the capital members of the campaign was that Open Book created a literary set of campaign promises. Chris Mahai community. explains: “The first promise was ‘once Throughout the and done,’ meaning we would raise the design and necessary capital to complete the project construction phase, and fund a reserve for the ongoing volunteers hosted coffee gatherings or maintenance of the facility.” In other wine and cheese parties to walk people words, they pledged to donors that Open through. Open Book partners asked each Book would not return in later years for group what would make the building additional capital or operating funds. The more welcoming and appealing for the second campaign promise was to stimulate various constituencies. visibility for the literary arts. Third, Open Book pledged that its economic model With all that the partners had to do, it is would strengthen the founding tenants. noteworthy that they decided to make Finally, it pledged to be an organization ongoing community connections a priority that would be a leader and anchor in the for their time. These contacts surfaced renaissance of the Mississippi River/ good ideas, “convinced people that this Washington Avenue corridor. The decision was going to happen,” and demonstrated to create campaign promises framed the a genuine commitment to making a home request for support in terms of Open for literature that would be open to all. Book’s commitment to donors and its Symbolism and ritual broader vision Open Book leaders created celebratory for the moments to mark successes and to community. reinforce the importance of each person’s contribution. Celebrations in May 2000 marked the opening ceremonies for the Ongoing building. The first of these was a party for community construction workers and their families. A connections fundraising gala the next day drew 500 The community people. A week later, a free opening discussions that had marked the origins of attracted 4,000 people on a warm Sunday Open Book continued throughout its afternoon. development. Partners spoke with people A more intimate celebration occurred in who lived and worked in the August. Hank See was so moved by his

22 wife’s devotion to Open Book that some processes for mutual accountability. One months earlier he had inquired about the partner describes how he and many others possibility of dedicating some portion of were doing things every day that were the building to her. Working in secret from completely unfamiliar to them, “but we campaign director Drew Stewart’s living were all doing them in the spirit of finding room, Hank invited friends, family solutions and listening to each other.” members, neighbors, and colleagues to Another recalls, “If someone got weak in make special gifts to the campaign in order the knees, there was someone else who to name the central staircase in her honor. could do it.” Collaborative work groups At a surprise party, the dedication was were formed at both the staff and board unveiled and Gail was presented with a levels. These groups brought different handmade book bearing the names of 143 sensibilities to the project, and interceded donors who had contributed $220,000 to for one another when necessary. honor her. This ritual was important because it honored one person’s commitment and simultaneously This structure of mutual accountability in acknowledged the power of what people part stemmed from the high value Open could accomplish together. Book partners placed on relationships. Peggy Korsmo-Kennon’s analogy is that it Another handmade book was an was like a whitewater rafting trip that important symbol at a very they were on together. public gathering the “Someone would almost fall following year. Open Book out, and we would grab had launched a “Get in the them, you know, and there Book” campaign months were all these rapids that we earlier to complete the had to get through in order campaign and solidify to get to the open waters.” grassroots support from “That’s where trust has to people who could not make come in,” says Gail See. major gifts. Its slogan was, “You are counting on “We need hundreds of caring everyone. In the core group, people to bring us home.” One year after it never occurred to me that people would opening, an anniversary party was held to not do what they said they would do, that extend thanks to all campaign donors, someone was going to let us down.” regardless of the size of their contributions. Each donor received a handmade book Public accountability containing over one thousand names, One of the most high stress decisions of the listed alphabetically. This egalitarian capital campaign occurred midstream. The gesture reinforced the importance of every original campaign goal had been based on person and every gift, and promoted the detailed cost projections and included a idea that all community members shared a substantial contingency line item. But as stake in Open Book. Drew Stewart points out, “Renovations are infinitely more risky to estimate than Mutual accountability new buildings, in terms of precision. As it The creation of Open Book was as turns out, there were all kinds of demanding as it was exciting. Partners difficulties with the 100-year-old building experienced many times of high stress. that I don’t think anyone could truly have Their response was to structure work known until they started the work.”

23 Open Book board members and planners recognized the continual need to align emerging costs with fundraising goals. They met every Friday morning, discussing project management and fundraising on alternate weeks. In the summer of 1999, they found themselves facing substantially higher costs. New structural issues had been discovered once the building had been cleaned out. Cost projections rose as each organization projected its needs in greater detail. A hot construction market was driving up costs. After careful discussion with its fundraising volunteers, Open Book raised its campaign goal to $6.75 million.

The board’s determination to achieve Open Book’s goals without sacrificing key elements convinced them that this was the right decision. Still, they worried that it would be seen as an expression of incompetence. As a matter of public accountability, campaign leaders communicated the changed goal immediately. They mailed letters to all existing donors. They changed the campaign literature, reported the change frankly in the campaign newsletter, and spoke personally with major prospective donors to explain their rationale. These audiences seemed to take the change in stride. Applying the ethic of public accountability in times of bad news as well as good news seemed to reinforce confidence in the project’s integrity.

24 Chapter 3: The dream fulfilled, the dream unfolding

Developments in the building Financial status. Almost immediately, Open Book became a The capital campaign’s success at meeting destination for people and groups of all a broad set of goals launched a period of ages and remains an active spot. School financial stability for the founding groups are bussed to the building for organizations and for Open Book. The workshops and classes. Authors from campaign reached its goal in 2001, raising around the country arrive to take a look. a total of $7,285,000. Open Book paid off International groups who have heard the the construction loan early, and operates Open Book story come to see the building the building with no debt. The campaign and talk with the founding organizations. was officially concluded in 2003 with the Dozens of groups, primarily nonprofits, collection of all but .06% of pledges. The rent space for meetings, seminars, plant reserve fund raised as part of the workshops, readings and receptions. In capital campaign was invested just the first three years, more than 200 conservatively and suffered no reductions groups used the book club room. Many in its balance during the severe economic visitors are attracted to Open Book for a downturn that began shortly after the cup of coffee in the Coffee Gallery or an building opened. Income from rentals exhibit at the art gallery. With all these approached $40,000 in 2003. The building activities, and the increased programming has had a balanced budget each year since of each organization, Open Book averages opening. Open Book has created a modest 10,000-11,000 visitors every month. Many cumulative operating surplus while of these visitors had no prior association keeping tenant rent increases to 2% or less with the three founding organizations. per year.

Managing the activity Open Book’s blossoming activity required Relationships with other tenants on-site building management. In late 1999, A key part of the economic model is the board hired the firm GSR to handle having tenants that can pay market rates routine maintenance, plowing and to support the building. In this, Open Book janitorial service, as well as security and has faced its most serious challenge and accounting services. Building Manager disappointment with the closing of Brian Bergee was hired to coordinate use Ruminator Books. Partners had actively of the building and keep things courted the independent bookstore to running smoothly. Brian open a second location in Open maintains the master calendar Book, which would offer the kind of Creative tension: of events; manages rental for laid back, quirky store they were finding tenants that the performance hall, looking for. However, after a both enhance the classrooms, and meeting room; reasonable start, Ruminator mission and and helps to coordinate events. Book’s owner determined that the provide a reliable He also oversees the contracts store could not thrive. The Open income stream at managed by GSR, and works Book board was able to negotiate market rates. closely with the Open Book fair financial terms and an board to address building issues. amicable parting. Still, partners

25 mourn the loss of the bookstore because it enjoys the interactions with others in the had represented so integral a part of the building. Because his fate is intertwined literary continuum, and hope to have a with theirs, John appreciates being in a bookstore at Open Book again in the building managed by a board with a sense future. of purpose and an investment in seeing him thrive. Both luck and creativity contributed to finding and negotiating with a new tenant for the bookstore’s space. Rosalux Gallery, Changes for the founding partners a nonprofit artist collective, now occupies parts of two floors, with exhibit space “We were able to grow into ourselves. adjacent to the front entrance and to It’s like having a plant that’s root-bound Coffee Gallery. in its pot, and as soon as you replant it, it just blossoms.” Both Rosalux and the Coffee Gallery contribute to Open Book’s atmosphere as Life changed dramatically for the well as to its finances. Having a visual arts founding partners when they moved into presence on the first floor helps to their new home. Programs evolved, the reinforce the bridge between literature and number of participants and visitors book arts, enhancing the building’s surged, and budgets increased. Spirits mission. Artwork by one of the Rosalux lifted as each organization settled into artists appears on a Milkweed book cover. space that was larger, more suitable to Rosalux also has collaborated with Loft their needs, and beautiful. readings and its artists’ events bring large numbers of new visitors to Open Book. The Loft Coffee Gallery is the social hub of the The transition building, welcoming visitors and providing Board chair Liz Petrangelo remembers her space for writers to sit and work over surprise that the move into Open Book coffee and a meal. It benefits from hungry garnered so much national attention. “It Open Book visitors and from the made a splash because it was the first opportunity to cater many events in the project of its type in the nation,” she building. Owner John Sherrell wanted to recalls. “Literature just doesn’t have real locate in an artistic environment, and he estate. It’s a very private enterprise. Readers sit alone; writers sit alone and write. There’s no standard to create a destination for literature.” Suddenly The Loft had a public face. People would call or simply show up, wanting information or tours. There was some initial confusion about the distinction between the Loft and Open Book. Demand for Loft programs surged. The move to Open Book coincided with a new strategic plan, which placed high priority on creating new programs and collaborative opportunities. The Loft started rush hour, lunchtime, and

26 weekend programs. Identity Creative tension: With full time access Loft representatives are amazed and meeting new and to five classrooms, gratified at how much difference the space higher demand class enrollment makes to their organization and their with the right increased 78 percent, sense of purpose. Open Book is “a balance of staff. to about 4,000 statement to the world that the word is students. Staff critical,” says board chair Liz Petrangelo. struggled both with the The building continues to serve as “a disruption of the move itself and with the beacon,” with writers from the region and increased number of members, the world coming to find this space they participants, and visitors. have heard about. The excitement of the space does not disappoint these seekers, according to Liz: “A palpable creative spirit hangs in the air.” Staffing Like the other founding partners, the Loft Milkweed Editions has experienced some growing pains. The transition Revenue did not immediately keep up Milkweed moved from with the increased number of participants. cramped, noisy Creative tension: Within two years, the Loft had quarters into airy and vigilance in experienced 40% staff turnover. Linda serene space on the maintaining Myers knows that this compares positively third floor of Open successes while with other’s experiences; she recalls one Book. Having also considering study that found that organizations warehouse space in the strategic options. experienced staff turnover as high as 70- basement rather than 90% following their capital campaigns. off-site gives staff easy access to books in stock. Finances Floor to near-ceiling shelves of Open Book organizations, while thriving, books are available for browsing in their have not been sheltered from downturns lobby. in the economy. As a result, Loft management has been cautious about The publishing industry changes rapidly expanding staff to keep up with program and is intensely competitive. Milkweed demand. But many signs are positive. The therefore operates in what one described Loft’s overall budget has grown from $1 as “a constant strategic planning mode,” million right before the move to $1.8 even as it continues to strengthen the million in 2004. Individual memberships programs and publishing niches that have have more than doubled, to 3,000, and helped make Milkweed Editions the largest individual donations have increased by nonprofit literary press in the country. 40%. Partly due to the Loft’s leadership role in creating Open Book, it was selected Visibility by the Ford Foundation as one of 28 arts Although Milkweed’s vision of a new organizations in the nation to participate home did not imply programmatic in a special initiative for which it received changes, the spacious common areas of a $1 million challenge grant to seed its the building have made certain things first-ever operating endowment. possible for the first time. Milkweed has hosted conferences, celebrations, and programs in the performance hall and

27 other spaces. Hilary Reeves, managing MCBA director, notes that being able to host The transition publication In many respects, MCBA was the most parties and transformed by the move to Open Book. other events Board member Charlie Quimby has been emphasizes that the decision to be part of especially the collaboration was a commitment to important for a something bigger and fundamentally press with different for the organization. MCBA national would become a much more public space, distribution, and that had major implications for because they programs, staff, and artistic direction. are opportunities to develop more presence in its home community and to Visibility showcase authors. In the new building, Its storefront windows and new Milkweed launched what has become an Washington Avenue location caused its annual fundraiser, the Book Lovers Ball, visibility to soar, and with it came a surge which puts literature on stage for an of visitors. “There was accidental as well evening of fine food and readings. In as purposeful traffic,” Charlie says, and it addition to helping boost Milkweed’s caused a redefinition of staff roles. For the donor base by more than 50%, these first time, MCBA developed a customer events have enabled Milkweed to add a service function. A retail shop was performance aspect to its work. designed to serve the multiple functions of introducing people to programs of MCBA, Identity registering people for classes, and serving The Open Book location has also made a as a reception and visitor services center. subtle contribution to the public’s MCBA moved into space 50% larger than understanding of what Milkweed Editions it had occupied. Within the first year, the is. Founder Emilie Buchwald retired in number of staff, 2003. The new editor in chief, Chip Blake, audience members, says he was drawn to the job in part participants and because of the statement that the building artists served also makes about the importance of literature increased by 50%. here. Chip thinks that the intersection of Charlie remembers the three founding organizations at Open that this had “a Book has “fundamentally changed how galvanizing and people see our work.” Through the catalytic effect—it presence of the other organizations, accelerated the “visitors see publishing in the fuller organization’s context of literature and books. When maturity.” people experience the relationship between publishers and people who love Staffing to express themselves artistically through It was a struggle to keep up. Within the writing, publishing is no longer first three years, MCBA’s audience more theoretical.” than doubled, to 65,000 people. Adult class enrollment more than doubled, to nearly 2,000. Youth and community programs tripled to include more than

28 35,800 teachers and students. When Peggy Status of the collaboration Korsmo-Kennon left in March 2003, the organization was still trying to determine “It’s such a relief to be here. what would be the new equilibrium of I’m on the board of my landlord, who is staffing and programming. Dorothy totally committed to my success. Goldie, MCBA’s new executive director, I’ll never have to do a capital campaign. thinks that the surge in growth masked I’m in a beautiful space, in a actual market trends. MCBA was neighborhood that’s growing.” exploding during a time of economic downturn, and it made corresponding Every collaborative endeavor has to sort budgetary leaps to keep up. Staff grew out what degree of joint activity makes from five full time equivalents to more sense for its member organizations, on a than 20, and later was trimmed and continuum from complete autonomy to reorganized to 12. MCBA carries a lot of merger. In the early years, Open Book overhead, since its programs require partners felt their way along that significant dedicated studio space with continuum. First they simply networked to limited potential to generate revenue. This explore mutual interests. Then they began creates pressure for contributed income. to coordinate their work in more MCBA hired a development director and organized ways. The planning grant has since seen steady growth in launched leadership and task group contributions. The annual budget structures, and each organization made increased from $430,000 to more than large-scale personal and organizational $900,000. commitments of time.

Identity Then came the Hosmer Library meeting, at By moving into Open Book, MCBA which the partners “all linked pinkies and became the most comprehensive away we went.” This is the moment they independent book arts facility in the entered into collaboration, by making an nation. Charlie Quimby’s service on the irrevocable commitment to accomplishing MCBA board spans several years. He the joint objective. Visible leadership was remembers many iterations of artistic put in place, with partner organizations focus: curatorial, graphic design, sharing equally in the decision making. educational, contemporary, support for Staffing, roles, tasks, and communication artists. These were all important, but were channels that had been designed as emphasized in serial fashion. He thinks interim structures became formalized. MCBA historically has been driven more Everyone shifted into high gear to by concerns for survival than by artistic maximize problem solving and mission and that the future holds “the productivity. Partners understood that this opportunity to draw all this together in degree of investment was to be short term. one package.” Though they were not merging their organizations, they were in a sense merging their lives for a period of time in Creative tension: order to achieve the longer term objective high volume of visitors that would not require the same degree of and “accidental traffic” intensity to maintain. requiring new staffing design. Open Book is now in a new time, a second phase of life. The collaborative entity is the

29 status quo, not the distant goal that Programming is relatively autonomous, demanded full throttle attention. The although the organizations do align urgency of the task is absent, and with it complementary programs and activities the compulsory level of interaction, for mutual benefit. Early on, Open Book conflict, and dedication necessary to decided not to develop joint programming achieve it. Open Book partners are now as a major thrust; it produces one or two free to define how “joint” this joint large events annually. Partners have venture will be as they go forward. coordinated some of their children’s Today the degree of “jointness” among programs and educational programs. Open Book partners varies across tasks. A Some believe more programmatic fairly tight integration characterizes Open collaboration could further their work. Book’s governance and building Others see few natural opportunities and management functions. Soon after moving think it unnecessary to push for more. As in, the partners established a well- Chip Blake put it, “co-habitation didn’t integrated system of space usage that make us more alike.” Partners’ primary functions smoothly. Decisions about collaborative programming occurs with finances and building needs are non-Open Book organizations, extending centralized at the board level. Each their individual and collective reach into organization’s representatives the community. communicate Open Book board decisions back to their respective groups.

Open Book organizations operate more independently on infrastructure. A phone system, internet service, and a website are shared. There are no shared staff. Open Book Board meetings are the main source of routine communication among the organizations. Relationships are ad hoc, informal, and congenial. The period after moving in was a time for each organization to focus on its internal issues, and even to “recover from the trauma” of the intense preparation. As day-to-day interaction dwindled, people “got used to working separately, side by side.”

30 Chapter 4: What Open Book Teaches about Collaboration

Open Book is unique in many ways, but it and established ways of working through was not born of magic. A cadre of them that served them for the rest of the committed people put in months—even process. They brought differences into the years—of hard work to create it. They open and resolved them, avoiding navigated the rough waters of undercurrents of dissatisfaction that could organizational change and of erode the project. As Linda Myers reflects, collaboration. The numerous creative “It’s not that we didn’t have terrible tensions highlighted in this story illustrate problems. We had them up front. And how partners grappled with questions of because we were able to come back purpose, growth, autonomy, leadership, together, the problems motivated us. I and commitment—to each other, to the think our success is due to our having book, and to the community. these crisis moments that got managed very well, and then coming back to the We now return to the eight core questions table.” raised in the preface to this story. We hope the answers to these questions will be Drew Stewart remembers this well. useful to others interested in how “Almost every time it came down to a collaborations evolve and what makes critical decision,” he recalls, “people them successful. would check in with their feelings and emotions as much as all of the business and economic stuff that they should. That 1. What was even more important than was really refreshing.” It also was quite planning during the planning deliberate. The leaders knew that long- phase? term success as a collaboration was dependent upon the partners’ A well-funded planning phase enabled straightforward dealings with one another the organizations to test their at every step along the way. strengths and develop effective means Collaborations are made not of structures of working together. but of relationships.

“There were big, huge disagreements The partners’ effective management of along the way, and compromises. planning phase problems enabled many of But we didn’t operate in the typical their difficulties to be turned into ‘Minnesota nice’ kind of way. We had advantages. For example, because the our outbursts right up front— partners had designed a lengthy process nothing passive about them.” they had enough time to work through complexities and enough resources to hire Perhaps the most important and least high quality people to help. Their inherent tangible value of the planning grant was attention to detail prolonged decision- that the organizations got to know each making but produced specific, realistic other: their distinctive organizational criteria on which to base those decisions. cultures, leadership qualities, The lack of existing models left room for complementarities and vulnerabilities. the partners’ own creativity. For at least They discovered their points of tension one observer, even the organizations’ initial uncertainty about commitment was

31 an advantage. It indicated the essential The groups faced time pressures that honesty of the process—it was not a forced them into a breathtaking pace of fait accompli dressed up to look like open project development. This required inquiry. extreme investments of time from many people to avoid overwhelming the Open Book partners sought advice from capacity of the group. Several partners many others to develop models and test believe that the urgency created by real their thinking. deadlines in some respects made the job easier. As one puts it, “Everyone gave up Open Book was unusual in some of the acting out behavior that the degree to which it otherwise might have accompanied the sought advice from others “We project.” in the community. Other organizations that had weren’t One of the implications of being on conducted recent capital afraid to “expedition behavior” was an ethic of campaigns responded ask for responsibility for the good of the whole. with specifics about help.” Something much larger was at stake than strategies and sources. an individual or an organization, and the The Jerome Foundation, project brought out the best in each of the which had spearheaded an partners. Probably every person effort to create a shared arts building a experienced occasional despairing few years earlier, shared what it had moments, but “we didn’t permit that of learned about facilities planning. A each other, or didn’t permit that side of management company spent hours with ourselves to show.” Instead they looked to Nancy Gaschott, helping her to figure out the “calm, kind, problem-solving operating budgets and put together approach” employed by the architects, accurate projections. When Open Book construction company, and developer and planners asked for help, they found a redoubled their efforts to resolve problems generous community of people who were satisfactorily. willing to communicate information and insights that enabled Open Book to test its vision against reality. 3. What was the link between designing the shared space and defining the collaborative 2. How did leaders use the tight time relationships? frame as an advantage? The tasks of choosing a building and The intensity and momentum created designing its space were necessary by the tight time frame were used not tools for visualizing what the three as an excuse to paper over differences organizations collectively could but as a reason for frank discussion become. and quick resolution. “When people are drawn into a “We had no choice. We couldn’t stay process of thinking spatially, it is stuck. Nobody’s nose could stay clarifying and instructive. It allows them out of joint for too long.” to imagine interactions and relationships in new ways.”

32 Until Open Book partners made a Open Book partners spent more than two commitment to 1011 Washington, many years in discussion and exploration before had a hard time making the idea of the they ever got to the Hosmer meeting. collaboration concrete in their minds. One During that time, the Loft played the most partner describes the search for space as recognized and persistent leadership role. sometimes bringing out people’s worst Loft board and staff were committed to fears, because no one knew the kind of creating a home for space they would be in. Jay Cowles literature, even if remembers how the building resolved “I give credit to a Milkweed and many of those uncertainties. “Once we whole lot of MCBA could not bought it, it became clearer what the main be a part of it. At attributes of this project were going to be people…” the same time, and what the meaning was going to be, they firmly believed not only for the three organizations, but in a vision that, by definition, establishing literary arts and book arts, depended on developing genuine establishing the confluence in one partnerships. Ownership, investment, risk, building. It became concrete and and leadership all had to be shared. Linda defensible then.” This is a process Myers reflects on her absolute “faith that developer Chuck Leer has seen before. “I there is so much more when you’re all believe that part of our lives [is] defined by together.” This ideology also had a the kinds of spaces we spend time in,” he practical implication. The effort could fall says. As partners reviewed each potential apart if others perceived the Loft as space, they became more clear about what pushing too hard. It was crucial to Open they needed and how they might work Book’s success that the Loft was able to together. “Through the process of finding carry out the early leadership functions, the right space, I think they found each and then to share them as others stepped other.” forward.

That process of clarification continued under Garth Rockcastle’s guidance. As an A dispersed leadership structure architect, he says his role is to “help people enabled talent to emerge on all levels. think about space and utilization of space.” People can begin to project how “Leadership is really good listening. they might interact if the space were It’s having a totally positive outlook configured in certain ways. They begin to that problems can be solved. It’s just see theoretical possibilities become real. For not letting in the shadows. It’s Open Book partners, visualizing the working in the sunshine.” physical space was a necessary building block for constructing the partnership Open Book’s model was one of dispersed itself. leadership that depended upon a broad network of people. Jay Cowles and Chris Mahai modeled a “very frank and task 4. How did the dispersed leadership oriented” style of leadership. Gail See, a structure work in this case? founding Open Book board member, recalls the open communication pattern Early leaders were persistent and established by Jay and Chris. “As issues inclusive, building momentum and came up, we addressed them. The then sharing leadership with others. important thing is really to get it out on

33 the table and talk about it, because it’s not going to go away. You deal with it and 5. How did Open Book partners then move on.” approach the question of fairness in dealing with the very different All three executive directors, in addition to needs and concerns of the founding working on collaboration matters, organizations? provided the internal leadership necessary for their organizations to cope with Open Book’s model of fairness was not disruption, take on extra work, and to treat each of the partner manage the transition. Board members organizations the same, but to help were also key. Tom Hoch provided crucial each solve whatever unique problems help working through zoning and parking were creating roadblocks. problems. Jon Scoll, Chris Mahai, and William Myers were instrumental in Differences among designing the legal and governance model. the three partner Gail See, who had been a great proponent “No one was organizations of literary arts and book arts for 20 years keeping score.” marked the whole and had served on all three boards, course of the became what one person described as a collaboration. They “spiritual leader.” She was “just adored” had different internal dilemmas to solve and gave the project a warm and gracious and varying views on what role the tone that touched all who met her. collaboration could play in their development. Each partner organization All these forms of leadership were crucial moved at its own pace, sorting out when there was so much work to be done financial and other worries internally, and so quickly. Each of the leaders also not necessarily seeing eye to eye. Under exhibited the lack of hubris that these circumstances, it was “remarkable, characterized the whole endeavor; they the extent to which the three give tremendous credit to others. organizations’ boards were willing to “Everyone had to show up as a leader. We place the futures of their individual all just dove in and did what needed to be organizations in the hands of a done.” Problems were simply there to be collaboration still being developed.” They solved. People were in place with the took risks and proceeded with authority to solve them. Quickly. unanswered questions. This was made Elegantly. And on to the next. possible by Open Book’s model of fairness and commitment to bringing everyone along together.

Interpersonally that fairness was manifested by patience and mutual support. Equally important was a series of concrete commitments that resolved financial roadblocks unique to the organizations. The collaboration made tens of thousands of dollars in financial commitments: assuring MCBA of financial help if it was needed to get out of its lease,

34 providing funds for Milkweed’s temporary building move, and helping each organization with from what moving and settling in expenses. The one dollar amounts to each organization were described not equal; rather, they demonstrated the as “a belief that each organization was an equal tyranny of part of the vision and the end result. “It one or two simply had to work for everyone. We tenants.” surrendered to the ideal of doing what it takes for the common good.” The relationship between this new entity of Open Book and the three founding organizations was a central part of the 6. What is instructive about the legal, model. The three founders would operate financial, and governance models with annual leases that would vary that provide the framework for according to the building’s needs, and be Open Book? automatically renewed unless the tenant chose otherwise. A governing board would Open Book’s legal and governance be made up of representatives of the three structures preserve necessary founding organizations, plus up to three autonomy for the founding independent directors. This meant that organizations, while providing for each founding organization’s interests their common welfare. would be directly represented and negotiated at the governance level. The “At first we thought we would kind leases and the governing board created of own this like a condominium. durable structures for assuring the Then (the working group) came back building’s financial health, protecting each with this, and it was so different from organization’s autonomy, and sustaining what I was expecting. But I thought, well, collaborative decision making. this will work fine. And in fact, it is one of the key elements to our success.” Open Book’s economic model assured sufficient capitalization and the The legal framework for the collaboration founders’ long-term financial best had to address several complex issues. interests. First, it had to affirm the joint endeavor while also meeting each individual “Especially for arts groups, buildings organization’s needs for autonomy. are so dangerous because they have Second, it had to make all three founding requirements that you can’t avoid.” organizations equal partners in the outcome of the capital campaign so they Reserve fund. Control over occupancy could focus their efforts on maximizing the expenses meant assuring that the building fundraising effort and not worry about would not be a drain on its occupants. “keeping score” as to how much money Annual costs to operate the building had each organization brought in. Third, it had to be affordable to tenants, and there had to ensure that the founders would have to be no major building needs for which some control over their future in the the tenants would need to raise funds. building, since they were doing all the “I’ve been around long enough to be work to create a long-term home for extremely wary of the power of buildings themselves. Finally, it had to protect the

35 partners with detailed financial analysis: “We looked at their costs and income sources at the time, and what would be the change in their costs if they had the space they really needed in a new building. What would it do for their potential to earn more money? Were there any efficiencies? What pressures would be put on their own fundraising?” The analysis revealed that rent at $8 per square foot on an ongoing basis would enable them to balance their budgets while also generating more business that would result in additional revenues. to do harm,” says Drew Stewart. “A lot of organizations don’t fund depreciation. My belief is, you have to fund it.” Drew 7. How did the three founding prepared an analysis of what elements of the building would wear out, over what organizations, so different from one period of time, and what each would cost another, balance their needs for to repair. This resulted in the inclusion of a autonomy and integration? $685,000 reserve fund in the capital campaign. Doing so removed potential Partner organizations were naturally fundraising competition between Open at different stages of stability and Book and its founding tenants for the maturity, but for the collaboration to useful life of the building. work each had to come to the joint endeavor from a position of strength. Open Book’s economic model included income streams that would support the “Leadership (of board members) made it building, thereby reducing occupancy possible to survive enormous tensions. It costs for the three founding partners. The needed every ounce of their business performance hall, meeting room, and experience. Having that…created other spaces would be available for rent to an atmosphere where we outside groups. About one third of the could make decisions.” building would be leased to complementary businesses or nonprofits Vision, passion, and determination were that would pay market rates. essential qualities for the individuals who founded Open Book. But they needed to be Another component of the financial model matched with commensurate qualities of was to restructure the financial health of organizational strength. Each partner had each organization by stabilizing annual to be convinced that an alliance would costs and gradually reducing rents as a contribute to its growth and programmatic percentage of operating expenses. The evolution and that it was prudent capital campaign included an amount financially. One person describes it quite sufficient to pay for the three nonprofits’ simply as performing “due diligence.” moving expenses and provide each with a budget for furniture, computers, or other Determinations of institutional strength basics needed in the new space. In were largely the responsibility of board addition, Drew Stewart assisted the members. Each group was taking a risk,

36 and there was the combined risk that if any one of them were to fail the other two Finally, having to grapple with would be left holding the bag. Planners collaboration decisions meant that the repeatedly called upon the practical partners were continually clarifying business perspective of many board matters of boundaries and fit. What could members. Skills in financial analysis, they do jointly versus preserve as their strategic planning, and risk assessment own? How could they articulate to the were of enormous value. Ultimately, these public their individual identities while analyses gave each organization the marketing the joint entity? Where were the confidence that they were proceeding margins between each organization’s from a platform of interdependency and physical space and their shared spaces? not dependency. Answers to these questions were not simply of pragmatic use. They served to Partners crafted a way to be part of a reinforce and clarify each organization’s large, visible joint endeavor and not mission, reach, and relationships to the only retain their identity but community, thus strengthening identity. strengthen it.

“People in literature, presses and 8. What made the case for establishing others, have generally been shy of Open Book so compelling to collaboration, because they’re mavericks. community members, and is it Open Book demonstrates that you fulfilling its promise to the can retain your identity, your brand, community? your integrity, and still be part of a collaborative project.” The strength of the Open Book case as a collaboration was that it established Open Book partners fundamentally something greater than securing the needed each other. Their combined forces well-being of the founding partners. created the vision of a home for literature and attracted the funds to build it. But “Open Book is a statement to the world they were also very different from each that the word is critical. It needs to be other and concerned about maintaining anchored in our minds, and their individual identities. The legal and our hearts, and in the ground.” governance structures described earlier helped to address that concern.

Another key to preserving their separate identities is their adaptability when differing circumstances demanded more or less joint action. The early intensity of working together on every major decision served its purpose and has been put to rest. Today some aspects of their operations are intertwined. Others are independent. Means of working together are not mandated, but arise organically through partners’ frequent contact with one another.

37 The partners positioned themselves as Open Book presented a case to the public three points along the continuum of the that defined literary arts as foundational literary arts. Anchoring them more firmly in our culture. It lifted up a vision of how would amplify and reinforce the whole this community could enhance and field. Donors could help to ensure the preserve literature’s importance. It longevity and success of all three crucial sounded a caution that, in this society in organizations, and at the same time which reading is declining, literature plays support the broader idea of a home for an important role in maintaining literature. democracy, helping people “broaden their minds and engage their critical thinking.” This idea captured the imaginations of It presented a model of how the book and over a thousand donors. This was a story literary arts could “assume their rightful that did not exist anywhere else in the place alongside the visual and performing country, and they would make it come arts in the public’s imagination.” true. As one funder put it, “Supporting Open Book was supporting individual This model rested on the strength of the artists, supporting mid-sized groups, individual founding organizations. Each supporting the kind of activity that creates was a national leader in its own field, with the fabric and texture and depth that deep local roots, loyal supporters, and a make this place worth living in.” broad base of participating artists. A plan simply to co-locate these groups would certainly have attracted attention, but this proposition was much larger.

38 Chapter 5: The Territory Ahead

Extending the reach Program. Milkweed also arranges for other literary nonprofit presses to display books “The challenge is to go back to what on its lobby bookshelf. The Loft brought us together in the first place. collaborated with the Star Tribune and What do we look like to the community? Minnesota Public Radio to launch the How can we make literature even Minnesota-wide book club program, more visible?” Talking Volumes. Open Book has made it possible for the Loft to create programs The dust has settled from the move into and events through partnerships with well Open Book. The founding partners have over a hundred community organizations, created new rhythms and patterns for public schools and universities, media their work. Of central importance to each outlets and arts groups. is the wide range of collaborative programs and activities undertaken with These examples illustrate the many ways other organizations in the community: in which the three founding organizations extend their reach into the community. MCBA created a collaborative brochure They convey Open Book’s commitment to with four other organizations that are the literary and book arts and to the centers for various forms of visual arts— original dream of creating a gathering textiles, clay, photography, and place where they can be promoted and printmaking. Its partnerships with schools celebrated. draw nearly 36,000 children to Open Book annually. Milkweed, already unusual And yet, Milkweed, MCBA, and the Loft among presses in its commitment to recognize that this is only the beginning. schools, also brings in school children from In their first four years at Open Book, they its Alliance for Reading program to learn have strengthened internal operations and more about how books are created. sent their roots even more deeply into the Milkweed hosted the 2000 Regional Press community. They have partnered with Fall Preview in Open Book’s performance other organizations and made the building hall and sponsored a celebration for available to hundreds of groups and students of the Sheridan Global Arts thousands of people. Now the Open Book Middle School’s Designated Reader board is embarking on a long range planning process. Partners want to take time to consider what else they might do to fulfill the promise and potential of Open Book.

39 Strategic issues for the future organization’s constituents relate to the whole vision and not only to a particular “It’s a conundrum. Being a physical class or event held at Open Book? What place makes the Open Book vision more can partners do to be a catalyst for tangible, but it also seems to take the development of audiences and care of it. The new iteration of the vision participants in book and literary arts? doesn’t have to do with the building, but with what it represents.”

On a recent day in spring, several Open Book partners gathered in the third floor meeting room to talk about the status of the collaboration. One part of the discussion centered on Open Book values. Participants realized that the commitment to success, which so powerfully motivated partners throughout the formation of Open Book, was focused on the building. Now that the building stands, they asked one another, how is that value to be understood? It was always about commitment to the book, and commitment Visibility to the community. Given this, what would Outside the front doors, the pace of success look like in the future? What development accelerates. Is Open Book strategic issues would Open Book need to ready to compete with the changes coming address? The following preliminary to the neighborhood? One participant thoughts arose from that discussion. speculated that “the assumption that we are a jewel is incorrect” and that Open Community focus Book “cannot wait for others to come to Open Book has achieved an apparent us, despite having a dynamic, vibrant equilibrium between an inward focus on building where it seems something special the needs of the founding organizations is expected to happen.” In order to and an outward focus on the community. compete with new businesses and arts The building is heavily used by a variety of venues in the neighborhood, Open Book groups. One person had heard Open Book may have to present a new face, to referred to as “the soul of the establish a new case. Founders may need neighborhood” because it promotes to communicate more with the public, and creativity, participation, and learning even with their own constituencies. They about literature in a community setting. should aspire to achieve “a state in which This was an important element of the this community can’t exist without us.” original vision: to take an intensely This sort of visibility would benefit the solitary, personal art form and make it founding organizations, while helping to public. At the same time, that equilibrium fulfill the fourth campaign promise: to be should not be taken for granted. Now that a leader and anchor in the renaissance of things have stabilized for the three the Mississippi River/Washington Avenue organizations, what more could they do to corridor. assure that Open Book remains a “center of gravity” for literature? Do each

40 The board’s goals The story continues These strategic issues prompted the group The story of Open Book is really many to consider the board’s goals and stories combined. It is the story of The Loft objectives going forward. Much of the Literary Center, Milkweed Editions, and board’s current activity grows directly out Minnesota Center for Book Arts— of the history of establishing the three organizations that “went beyond all organization and the building. Board reason” to express their commitment to agendas primarily attend to internal literature. It is about their imagination, building management and financial their faith, and their shared journey to matters. It functions partly as a landlord, create a building. It is also the story of looking out for the interests of the their individual growth and change. It is a founding organizations and respecting tale of a community of funders and their independence. These roles have been believers, strong supporters of the arts, crafted over time, the result of careful and of a community of artists, new and efforts to find a territory of leadership that seasoned, who have come to Open Book would complement that of the founding by the thousands. It is testimony to the organizations, rather than competing with power of the gathering place that Open its tenants. Book has unleashed the creative energies of those thousands, enlarging and Considering the challenges that now lie ahead, enriching artistic expression in the life of group members wondered whether it is time the community. for founding organizations to take greater advantage of the board as a strategic asset with a potentially broad leadership charge. It is of great value that the board continues to manage the status quo intelligently and ethically. But, as one said, “dealing with parking is important, but it’s not aspirational.” Should the board do more to help founding organizations keep alive the collaborative values that brought them together? What could the board do, that individual organizations cannot, to strengthen the community focus and help ensure the building’s visibility? What is its public role in speaking to the vibrancy of the literary arts?

This sampling of strategic issues for the future does not so much raise new questions as revitalize the dialogue surrounding old ones. Though the mix of people has changed, with “settlers” joining “pioneers” at the joint table, Open Book partners remain engaged with one another and with core questions stemming from their commitment to the book.

41 Appendix A

People Interviewed

Brian Bergee Chuck Leer Manager North First Ventures Open Book Open Book board member

Emerson “Chip” Blake Chris LaVictoire Mahai Editor in Chief Aveus, LLC Milkweed Editions Open Book board member

Emilie Buchwald Linda Myers Founder and former Editor in Chief Executive Director Milkweed Editions The Loft Literary Center

Jay Cowles Liz Petrangelo Unity Avenue Associates Business Owner Open Book board member The Loft Literary Center board chair

John Cowles Charlie Quimby Open Book donor Words at Work Minnesota Center for Book Arts board chair Neal Cuthbert Senior Program Officer Hilary Reeves The McKnight Foundation Managing Director Milkweed Editions Sid Farrar Former Executive Director Debbie Reynolds Milkweed Editions Milkweed Editions board member

Nancy Fushan Garth Rockcastle Senior Program Officer Meyer, Scherer & Rockcastle, Ltd. Bush Foundation Open Book architect

Nancy Gaschott Jon Scoll Administrative Director Lindquist & Vennum PLLP The Loft Literary Center Open Book board member

Cynthia Gehrig Gail See President Open Book board member emerita Jerome Foundation John Sherrell Dorothy Goldie Coffee Gallery owner Executive Director Minnesota Center for Book Arts Drew Stewart Management Consultant Tom Hoch Open Book capital campaign director Historic Theatre Group, Ltd. Minnesota Center for Book Arts board member Scott Tankenoff Hillcrest Development, LLLP Peggy Korsmo-Kennon 1011 Washington owner Bell Museum of Natural History Former Executive Director, Minnesota Center for Book Arts

42 Marg Walker is the principal in a consulting firm that she founded in 1985. Her business provides a variety of services designed to strengthen the work of philanthropic, nonprofit and public sector entities. Marg designs and implements research, organizational development and evaluation projects. Her work principally has been in the human services arena, focusing on children and families, HIV/ AIDS, violence prevention, immigrants and refugees, mental health, and other issues. She also has worked with numerous arts organizations. While completing her Ph.D. in organizational learning, Marg discovered a special interest in narrative research. She has developed a process called “storyography,” which helps organizations use narrative inquiry methods to gather and interpret stories as sources of knowledge for evaluation and learning.

43