Rose Kennedy Greenway

Memorial Drive presents an entirely different problem though. In addition to the highway around this median, you have walls of parked cars and no buildings or anything at all on one side. The harbor (or in this case, the Charles) isn't going to draw people on or across all by itself. That is why we need development (Chiafaro) on both sides of the RFKG. Trees alone nor development alone will do the job.
 
Actually, lots of people crowd onto the narrow sidewalk and grass verge next to the Charles here. Somehow space needs to be reallocated so that the eastbound highway lane is further from the river. That is hard to do without cutting down lots of mature trees.
 
czsz said:
$200k salaries for a nonprofit with almost nothing to show for it...just because it's out in the open, and being carried out with impunity, doesn't mean we shouldn't think of it as corrupt.
Click to expand...

I'm no accountant, but it looks like they reported about $1.5M in salary expenses for 2010. They list a management staff of 6 people on the website. Does anyone know how big the entire PAID staff for the conservancy is?

http://www.rosekennedygreenway.org/about-the-conservancy/public-documents.htm
 
BostonUrbEx said:
Memorial Drive presents an entirely different problem though. In addition to the highway around this median, you have walls of parked cars and no buildings or anything at all on one side. The harbor (or in this case, the Charles) isn't going to draw people on or across all by itself. That is why we need development (Chiafaro) on both sides of the RFKG. Trees alone nor development alone will do the job.
Click to expand...

The river is a huge draw. Why walk in a highway median when you can walk along a riverwalk?
 
BostonYoureMyHome said:
I'm no accountant, but it looks like they reported about $1.5M in salary expenses for 2010. They list a management staff of 6 people on the website. Does anyone know how big the entire PAID staff for the conservancy is?

http://www.rosekennedygreenway.org/about-the-conservancy/public-documents.htm
Click to expand...

You are misreading the financial statement.

The salaries includes salaries of staff who are not management; less than half of the salary expense line is administration and fundraising (management).

It does appear they spent more on trying to raise funds then they received in donations and gifts.
 
jass said:
The river is a huge draw. Why walk in a highway median when you can walk along a riverwalk?
Click to expand...

And if you're not walking/jogging/getting sun, what other reason is there to cross Memorial Driver? Especially with Memorial Drive itself in the way.
 
BostonYoureMyHome said:
I'm no accountant, but it looks like they reported about $1.5M in salary expenses for 2010. They list a management staff of 6 people on the website. Does anyone know how big the entire PAID staff for the conservancy is?

http://www.rosekennedygreenway.org/about-the-conservancy/public-documents.htm
Click to expand...

I'm a CFO at a non-profit. The only thing that looks a bit odd is the fund raising cost. Their general and admin is about 17%, which if anything, is on the lean side. But fundraising is almost 25%. That can be okay if a substantial purpose of the organization is raising money. I'm not sure whether they have the right balance on this, but the other thing that jumps out to me is they have a pretty large endowment for a new organization. If they have made the strategic choice of building an endowment as their highest priority activity, they are both doing a good job, and also keeping the fund raising costs at a reasonable place. The question then becomes, at what point is the endowment large enough, when do they shift their focus to making the Greenway more kick ass?
 
HenryAlan said:
I'm a CFO at a non-profit. The only thing that looks a bit odd is the fund raising cost. Their general and admin is about 17%, which if anything, is on the lean side. But fundraising is almost 25%. That can be okay if a substantial purpose of the organization is raising money. I'm not sure whether they have the right balance on this, but the other thing that jumps out to me is they have a pretty large endowment for a new organization. If they have made the strategic choice of building an endowment as their highest priority activity, they are both doing a good job, and also keeping the fund raising costs at a reasonable place. The question then becomes, at what point is the endowment large enough, when do they shift their focus to making the Greenway more kick ass?
Click to expand...

I appreciate this assessment, but I think you overlook the fact that unlike most non-profits the Conservancy is both the beneficiary and the trustee of an extraordinary public resource ? the Greenway.

That taxpayer financed asset has significant value, lends credibility to the Conservancy, and is a built-in generator for successful fundraising. In other words, the Conservancy should not necessarily be commended for raising an endowment.

If the Conservancy has made the strategic choice of building an endowment as their highest priority activity, they are not doing a good job ? they have not fulfilled their stated mission regarding primary objectives. If fundraising is their primary activity, they need to restate their mission. The taxpayers who financed the creation of the Greenway deserve a greater level of transparency.
 
Sicilian said:
I appreciate this assessment, but I think you overlook the fact that unlike most non-profits the Conservancy is both the beneficiary and the trustee of an extraordinary public resource ? the Greenway.

That taxpayer financed asset has significant value, lends credibility to the Conservancy, and is a built-in generator for successful fundraising. In other words, the Conservancy should not necessarily be commended for raising an endowment.

If the Conservancy has made the strategic choice of building an endowment as their highest priority activity, they are not doing a good job ? they have not fulfilled their stated mission regarding primary objectives. If fundraising is their primary activity, they need to restate their mission. The taxpayers who financed the creation of the Greenway deserve a greater level of transparency.
Click to expand...


^^^Agree 100% next they will become a hedge fund.
 
HenryAlan said:
I'm a CFO at a non-profit. The only thing that looks a bit odd is the fund raising cost. Their general and admin is about 17%, which if anything, is on the lean side. But fundraising is almost 25%. That can be okay if a substantial purpose of the organization is raising money. I'm not sure whether they have the right balance on this, but the other thing that jumps out to me is they have a pretty large endowment for a new organization. If they have made the strategic choice of building an endowment as their highest priority activity, they are both doing a good job, and also keeping the fund raising costs at a reasonable place. The question then becomes, at what point is the endowment large enough, when do they shift their focus to making the Greenway more kick ass?
Click to expand...
If you compare 2009 and 2010, there was a big bump in 2010 for fund-raising. There was no immediate payoff from that increased spending, but there could be a lag.
 
stellarfun said:
If you compare 2009 and 2010, there was a big bump in 2010 for fund-raising. There was no immediate payoff from that increased spending, but there could be a lag.
Click to expand...

Actually, there unrestricted net assets increased by about a million dollars. And the endowment increased by $1.5 M. That's a pretty good result. Again, though, I think the conclusion I draw is essentially Sicilian's: growing the endowment and other net assets is not the core mission. That they are effectively doing it, should only be tolerated if they are also effectively succeeding with the mission.
 
HenryAlan said:
Actually, there unrestricted net assets increased by about a million dollars. And the endowment increased by $1.5 M. That's a pretty good result. Again, though, I think the conclusion I draw is essentially Sicilian's: growing the endowment and other net assets is not the core mission. That they are effectively doing it, should only be tolerated if they are also effectively succeeding with the mission.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with the above.

I was pointing out on the balance sheet (p. 4) that revenue from contributions and donations amounted to $341,600 in 2010. And expenses for fundraising were $729,000. If I throw in all the revenue from gala's and events, (but not in-kind contributions) then they basically spent as much on fundraising as they took in.
 
Rose F. Kennedy Greenway?s Executive Director Honored for Excellence in Public Service Management

March 14, 2011 ? (Boston) ? The executive director of the Rose F. Kennedy Greenway Conservancy in Boston is being recognized today by the American Society for Public Administration (ASPA), an organization promoting professional public and non‐profit sector management. Nancy Brennan will receive the John W. Gaston, Jr. Award for Excellence in Public Service Management this afternoon at the ASPA?s national conference in Baltimore, MD.

Brennan was tapped by the ASPA for her leadership of the Rose F. Kennedy Greenway Conservancy and her natural resource management efforts on behalf of the Greenway. Award selection criteria include demonstrated attention to strategy, structure, systems, shared values, and skills, but ASPA says the key criteria is the achievement of results that contribute to public safety, health, welfare, and the quality of the environment.

Brennan was nominated by Ann Braga, staff director of the Boston City Council and ASPA member.

?Nancy Brennan is known for her collaboration, her creative vision, and her commitment to the Greenway,? says Braga. ?Those of us who live and work in Boston realize the Greenway is well on its way to becoming a world‐class public amenity, and we have Nancy to thank for much of it. This is a well deserved honor.?

Through its awards, ASPA advances excellence in public administration by identifying and illuminating positive contributions within the public realm.

About the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway
The Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway is a ribbon of contemporary urban parks that connects people and the city by providing beauty, fun, and a sense of community in Boston. Now, four of Boston?s most diverse and dynamic neighborhoods ? formerly divided by a massive structure of steel and asphalt ? are linked by beautifully landscaped parks, gardens, and plazas and reconnected with the harbor. For more
information, visit www.rosekennedygreenway.org.

About The Greenway Conservancy

The Conservancy is the designated steward of the Rose F. Kennedy Greenway, a new ribbon of contemporary urban parks in the heart of Boston. We are delivering on the promise of a beautiful, vibrant, innovative city park. Established in July, 2004 through an agreement with the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, the City of Boston, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Conservancy is a private, non‐profit organization, which operates, maintains, preserves and manages the parks on behalf of the public. The conservancy raises private and public funds to support the parks, aspiring to excellence in design, operations, and public programming.
Click to expand...
 
KentXie said:
Does she also get a pay raise with that?
Click to expand...

Govt officials are truly just a bunch of FAILURES. This Clown hasn't done one thing for the GREENWAY and now they are handing out an award.

I looked at the financials. I think somebody else might have mention this, but Fundraising Expense was 729,001 and Donation Revenues were 341,600. It seems they can't even cover their costs? Unless I'm missing something.
Taxpayer's support is 70% of their revenue.
 
TheRifleman said:
I looked at the financials. I think somebody else might have mention this, but Fundraising Expense was 729,001 and Donation Revenues were 341,600. It seems they can't even cover their costs? Unless I'm missing something.
Taxpayer's support is 70% of their revenue.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you are missing something. Fundraising is the cost of raising all or most revenue, not just donations. I would not include interest or annual allocation as fundraising results, but everything else, should be considered.

The other thing I take some issue with is your assertion that taxpayers are funding 70%. Government contracts are not donations. They are privatized services. That means the conservancy is doing something for an agreed price and fulfilling the deliverable requirements of the contract. That is very different from simply being handed tax revenues. I'd be interested to know what the service is, and how the state measures peformance.

Fundamentally, though, the financial statements do not indicate poor management in and of themselves. The financial result is fine. The issue should be the extent to which they fulfill their mission. I think most of us agree that they've failed at that. Fortunately, the finances are strong, so with the right leadership, the conservancy might be able to do something about that mission. If I were a board member, that's where I'd place my focus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top