(MIDNIGHT UPDATE: Right after our as-it-happened coverage of meeting #1, we have added the full unedited video of meeting #2)
Big turnout for 1st of 2 town halls today re: Senior Center's future. We will be chronicling live. pic.twitter.com/h2sB7z0R08
— West Seattle Blog (@westseattleblog) November 11, 2014
We’re at the Senior Center of West Seattle with about 100 people here to hear, and talk, about the center’s future. The issue first came to public light four months ago with the sudden ouster of the center’s longtime director Karen Sisson (as first reported here), who says she was fired over an e-mail (read it in this WSB report) expressing concern about the decision the center is reported to be facing – becoming a “program” of the citywide nonprofit Senior Services, or going independent. We’ll be reporting live as the meeting goes; there is a second session coming up at 5:30 pm for those who cannot be here this early.
Regarding the question “should we stay or should we go,” it’s just been stressed by independent facilitator Charlotte Stuart that “no decision will be made today.” She says they do not want those in attendance to speak about Sisson’s departure.
Her successor, interim center director Lyle Evans, is the first to make an opening statement. Second, board president David Robertson says the board has made a decision “to remain at this time under the current umbrella of Senior Services and to work with Senior Services to fulfill (its) mission … The Senior Center board of directors supports Lyle’s position as interim director” and will work with him.
Panel from the center and Senior Services pic.twitter.com/lvN87AdbQX
— West Seattle Blog (@westseattleblog) November 11, 2014
Senior Services CEO Paula Houston (who fired Sisson) speaks next. “We are very excited that the board has voted to remain with us and to work through the process that we are going to be putting in place.” That would seem to suggest that the first-announced point of the meeting is moot – the question “should we stay or should we go?” – although it came just minutes after the facilitator said “no decision would be made today.” Houston then goes on to say “nothing has been decided … we are just at the beginning of our decision-making process.” We’ll do what we can to get this clarified after the meeting.
One attendee asks Houston to define Senior Services and the center’s relationship with it. “We are a nonprofit … the largest one serving seniors in King County … we also operate (programs such as) Meals on Wheels, caregivers … enhanced fitness. Our relationship to this center is that we operate it under a memorandum of agreement – although the center is its own 501(c)(3) with its own governing body, Senior Services employs the staff, (provides some) funding, and (handles support services) such as IT, payroll …”
3:22 PM: The first member of the audience asks for clarification of that very point. Robertson says “That is not a permanent decision, that is a decision that at this time we are going to stay under the umbrella of Senior Services. There is a task force (that will) study the Memorandum of Agreement … to help develop (a new one). At this time we are staying under that umbrella – I am stressing those words, ‘at this time’. We are looking at a good 12 to 18 months before they have even done their research talking to the various centers and their staff.” (Senior Services runs six centers in the region.)
Nancy Sorensen, a member of the West Seattle center’s board, stands to say she wrote the original contract, ~30 years ago, and offers more background: The center was incorporated in 1972, and bought the building – now owned free and clear – in 1986; the center also has about $200,000 in reserves, she says. She explains the board first voted to secede from Senior Services, then rescinded that decision and decided to gather more information, including talking with the community and looking at budget projections and “whether there is community support for independence or community support for being part of Senior Services.” She summarizes, “the board has decided to remain a part of Senior Services pending further study.”
Will another permanent director be hired? asks another attendee. That’s on hold while the future is determined, is the reply.
Next Q: You all know all about this memorandum – but we don’t – can we see it? Sorensen (photo above) explains that the contract included a statement that the center director could not be determined without consulting the board, and mentions Sisson’s firing (which was supposedly not to be mentioned) was done “in violation of that memorandum of agreement.” She says copies of the six-page memorandum “can be provided.”
Then Doug Garvey steps up and says, “if we choose to go with Senior Services instead of stay independent, what are you going to do for me?”
Audience member Doug Garvey says he 'doesn't trust' Senior Services. pic.twitter.com/QugeD2MvfD
— West Seattle Blog (@westseattleblog) November 11, 2014
Houston steps up to reply, “We are going to ensure that this senior center remains a senior center in perpetuity. We know how important this center is to the community.” “How are you going to do that?” someone calls out from the crowd. Garvey steps back up to the mike and says, “We own this building … I gotta say, I don’t trust you. I think we can handle it on our own, that we can be independent … we got a good base here, we got a lot of hard work ahead of us, but we have a lot of great people here who can continue this, and I’m all for that.” Some applause ensues.
Facilitator Stuart next reads a question that was submitted in writing, asking for the advantages and disadvantages of staying with Senior Services. …
Houston said she didn’t know exactly how long the center had been under the SS umbrella. “Right about the time the building was purchased in 1984,” Sorensen says. Houston continues: “The benefits of staying with us .. Right now the staff is part of Senior Services, that means the salaries and benefits all come out of Senior Services. HR is one thing an independent center would have to take care of … There are definitely financial issues that come with being an independent center.” She mentions “the benefits of being with a larger organization” and the fundraising efforts that SS does, some of which benefit the center, which otherwise would have to do all its own fundraising. “You get our advertising – a lot of marketing, a lot of community engagement …”
Another member of the panel, Tim Bridges from Senior Services, says that the center went independent once and then returned to Senior Services, so perhaps someone could offer some backstory.
Regarding employees, Sorensen says they’ve “done a budget analysis for the next three years that would enable the same salaries and comparable benefits” as well as pension/IRA contribution. She says the “vast majority” of funds raised comes from this community, and while it does receive services from Senior Services, the center “pays for those services.” She says the MOA has been “redone over the years” with rights “taken away” from the center, and she mentions “an issue of trust” because of Sisson’s termination.
Bridges retorts that SS pays some benefits and that Senior Services is the “third largest funder” of the center, “after rentals and the thrift store.”
Craig Roberts is next to speak from the audience. He was board president in 1984-1986 “when this center was going through turmoil of the recession” before those years. “We pulled together in 1985 and raised over $1 million … to purchase this building .. I know every tear that was shed at every single board meeting (in those years) … the sweat and tears of this community … no one from downtown gave us money … I would love to see this center remain independent.” He says the MOA as 12 months at a time because Senior Services was chosen as a lifeline “with suspicion .. that suspicion has grown (as SS tries to take over) … I urge this board to remain independent. … (SS) does not know what is best for this community.”
Roberts points to the bingo sign donated by his family (seen below in a WSB photo from its 2011 dedication):
“We raise thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars for this center, and we can keep doing that independently … we don’t need Senior Services of King County to tell us what to do. We can do it ourselves.” Applause. “I urge the board to vote for independence … stop the tactics that are going on with Senior Services … we need to remain independent. I believe with our heart of hearts … (that the community can fund the center).”
Can some questions be asked by e-mail? The Senior Services reps say theirs are on the website. (We’ll find that link shortly.)
3:46 PM: Next to speak is community member Susan Harmon, who mentions her community advocacy has involved fundraising. “One of the things about this that concerns me is the ‘top down’ – that’s not how we operate in West Seattle – we are ‘bottom up’ – we want the voice of the people to be heard.” She says the membership should be meeting and making decisions and instructing the board on what *they* want to have done “and that is the way this has to be handled … any other way is not a way that will work for this community or for that matter any other community.”
Speaking next, audience member John Kennedy, who says he is in the financial-services business and “likes to trace the money.” He said he reviewed Senior Services’ financial reports. He said their report says they received $6 million and passed $6 million back to centers. So, he said, can they have a West Seattle-specific report, and can they trace Older Americans funds down to the center? Bridges says the center does not receive federal funds, and that it is a decision consciously made by the center not to receive governmental funds except for some city money. He says the WS center’s budget is “somewhere in the $400,000 range each year so the money we receive specifically for the Senior Center of West Seattle that comes downtown rather than to (the center) is $30,000 from the United Way,” otherwise, he says, the money they spend on the center is “unrestricted funds that we choose to give to” the center.
Next from the audience, Terry, who says he shows movies here twice a week and says he didn’t realize how great it was until he started coming here a few years ago. He brings up Stop ‘n’ Shop downstairs and its fundraising for the center. He says the “face time” provided by the center is healthy and suggests most people here are sending the message “don’t screw that up.” He also suggests “you’re as sick as your secrets” and asks for transparency – saying he can’t find information on when the board meets. “You don’t want people coming, you don’t want a big huge crowd?” He ends by asking for the personal e-mails of everyone at the table at the head of the room.
Community-dining programs run by the center would stay here, even if the center became an SS program, said Evans in response to a written question. Another written question: “Why does (Senior Services) want the West Seattle building?” Houston replies three times, “We do not want your building … Our task force is looking at models to ensure that you retain your assets. We understand that (you) have put (a lot) into making these buildings your own. Whatever model we come up, we are going to make sure you maintain your assets … I can’t say it any clearer.”
What’s it worth? $4 million is the reply, and Sorensen says, “Senior Services says it would not own the building, but it would become part of (some kind of) trust, and be leased back on a longterm basis.” She says the board meets on the second Wednesday of the month, 5:30 pm at the center. And yes, it’s an open meeting, she says.
Next question – why is Senior Services looking for “a new model”? Houston says she answered that in her opening remarks but will answer it again – “some of our major funders” questioned her about the MOA when she came on board about a year ago. (We asked this question in this prior WSB report.) Auditors asked, too, she said.
4:02 PM: Next audience change – would the Hyde Shuttle service change? No, Houston replies. She is next asked how Senior Services came to be, and offers some backstory involving United Way funding. Who is your boss? she is asked next. Senior Services board chair John Norton, a West Seattleite, she replies. (He apparently is not here.) Houston also clarifies that SS is an independent nonprofit, not a government agency.
Next question is addressed to Bridges: Do all six of the centers that SS runs get the same amount of funding? “No, every senior center does not get the same allowance,” he says, mentioning a formula starting “with a minimum of $40,000” and goes from there depending on size and success of a center. “So how much do we get?” asks the attendee, “versus, say, Beacon Hill.” Bridges say he thinks it’s about $128,000 for 2015.
Houston is addressed point-blank, did you step outside the agreement in making a personnel decision (the firing of Sisson)? She says she cannot comment. Next question, from West Seattleite Cindi Barker: Why would the building be put in a trust? Houston says, “That’s just one model, nothing has been decided.” She asks Bridges to reply. “It was just one idea we came up with … if the Memorandum of Agreement were to go away, and the Senior Center of West Seattle as a 501c3 organization would cease to be, the assets, something would have to happen to them … The fear is that Senior Services would swoop in, so (we looked at) ways (not to do that).”
He said the trust would mean they couldn’t take a mortgage out on it or sell it, and a board of trustees would still decide about maintenance of the building but wouldn’t be operating the center. “What that does is, that preserves this spot, a prime location in West Seattle, so that this building … stays a senior center in perpetuity. … That’s just one idea that we’re bouncing around, but it’s one idea that gives the community the most leverage over the building.” He said the idea came up in spring, when Houston “said ‘we may need to get rid of the MOA'” because of what auditors said.
Is the building the major sticking point with the memorandum? asks an attendee. “No,” Bridges says, “(it was that) there is no clear line of authority between the (local) board and the Senior Services board, who … could be totally at odds and it would cause us all sorts of problems with our funders and our insurance, and it’s an unsustainable business practice.”
So why hasn’t it been a problem before? asked an attendee. And is it a problem with all the other centers administered by SS?
Houston says the MOAs with all the centers “is being looked at.” And she says they “got new auditors this year,” precipitating the issue. Did the auditors provide recommendations? she was asked. “(No), other than that we needed to look at a different model.” Bridges adds that the taxes for all the centers are filed “under a group return.” He says the IRS wouldn’t allow this method of operation if it started today, would wonder why separate 501c3s were filing under one return, but that it’s been “grandfathered in” until now.
4:17 PM: One attendee reacts to the earlier mention of the United Way by telling a story about experiences at a corporation years earlier, saying it did not support her co-workers. Bridges says “I share your concerns about United Way.” When he arrived, UW was supporting SS with $1.3 million a year, but that’s down to $500,000 of a $16.5 million budget “and will continue to decline,” and about $30,000 of that goes to the West Seattle center.
He’s asked about city funding. About $88,000 a year for the West Seattle center (not included in the money that comes from Senior Services), according to Bridges, but a lot of it is “passthrough federal money” – the city “signs the check,” but the money originates with the feds. Responding to another question, he reiterated that this center “is unique” in not getting much governmental money. How much does SS get for administration? 17 percent of the expenses of each program, Bridges replies. The attendee clarifies, of, for example, $500,000 from United Way, how much does SS take for administration? He says they don’t take it off the top, but rather charge it “on the expenses going out.” The attendee then says it sounds like being a “managing agent” of a condominium, as much as anything.
Next question: Why doesn’t the board take government money? Sorensen says, “The board hasn’t taken any steps toward not accepting government money. … Quite a number of the services, programs provided here are paid for by government grants of one sort or another … they’re marked for (those services), and those would continue regardless. The center here has been successful in the support from the community in terms of growing itself and providing other services beyond what government services have been, so 83 percent of the budget (here) is locally raised in one way or another, whether through facility rentals, donations, other sources.” She reiterated that the building is owned free and clear, “to have this with no debt on it is a huge accomplishment.” She said the total budget for the center is about $650,000 a year (different from the number Bridges mentioned), “from all sorts of sources … there has been no effort in avoiding obtaining money from any source that’s available.”
Karen Sisson’s husband Doug Sisson speaks next. “Senior Services gives this money to the center but hasn’t mentioned that they charge the center $100,000 a year to be part of their organization” and says that the center would be able to apply for more than it can apply for now, because it wouldn’t have conflicts with other centers.
Moderator Stuart is now wrapping up. Sorensen says people could see the 3-year budget projections worked out for the center if it chose to go independent. One person says, “Why do you care if West Seattle opts out?” Houston replies, “We believe that all the senior centers are an important part of our organization and our network. We want to have a presence in West Seattle … and all the parts of the county where our services are. But if this community decides that Senior Services is not an optimal organization to be part of, we are going to continue the services in this community … community dining, enhanced fitness, Meals on Wheels, Hyde Shuttle, it’s going to stay.”
If you have questions and/or want to hear this information firsthand, there is another version of this meeting at 5:30 pm, upstairs at the Senior Center. Meantime, you can send questions/comments to interim director Evans at lylee@seniorservices.org.
–Tracy Record, WSB editor
*************
ADDED MIDNIGHT TUESDAY NIGHT: To cover the second meeting, we recorded it on video in its entirety:
A few toplines from WSB co-publisher Patrick Sand:
*Smaller turnout, about 30 people
*Some questions about how people get onto the West Seattle center’s board. Its president Dave Robertson said people apply, and then the sitting board votes on who to accept. It was suggested that the board should have someone from the general Senior Center membership; another attendee said it worked that way, once. Robertson said the board would be open to that type of change.
*Issues of trust emerged again, with the contention that Karen Sisson’s firing was at the heart of the lack of trust in Senior Services.
*Toward the end of the meeting, there was a direct question about the board’s position on staying or going. Robertson said that right now, the majority of the board wants “more information.” He acknowledged that the board is split right now between wanting to await that information from Senior Services’ task force, and wanting to secede. A majority vote eventually will decide. Robertson said board members had many discussions, including closed-door meetings, about it, and while they’re staying with Senior Services right now, that doesn’t mean they might not eventually decide to go their own way.
(Again, the board’s next meeting is Wednesday at 5:30 pm, and it was confirmed in the first meeting that it’s an open, public meeting, all welcome.)
| 31 COMMENTS