FSU fundraising and president role

great info.

FSU warned that new search could be a sham

jrfsu
7/17/2014

"Florida State has NEVER employed a president who spent 50% of their time on fundraising and the next person to occupy the corner office in Westcott will not either. As a point of reference, D'Alemberte remains the university's most aggressive fundraising president to date. He held one day per week for development work and the FSU Foundation in all honesty found appropriately filling all that time difficult.

I will add that deans and/or their assigned development staff and an institution's planned giving staff typically do most of the heavy fundraising lifting. The most engaged presidents tend to set a tone for development operations and help cultivate some very high-end prospects, but often presidents don't interact even with seven figure donors until it is time to say "thank you" and sometimes not even then.

We also are not Florida. What UF needs to accomplish (and said it would accomplish) to move into the top ten is not what Florida State needs to accomplish to reach the top 25 (in the measure we principally cited, USN&WR). And arguing that Florida State lacks a plan for preeminence money doesn't make it true. The university outlined a plan to the legislature and governor that identifies exactly what areas the university expects to improve and how appropriated money will be spent in support of those area improvements.

Leadership more specifically told the legislature and Governor Scott that the university could attain a top 25 public university ranking (according to USN&WR) by accomplishing the following in fields they defined as STEM: keep psychology ranked in the top five national publics; move physical sciences up from a #13 ranking into the top ten publics; move computer sciences up from #22 into the top ten publics; move social sciences up from a #20 ranking into the top fifteen publics; move mathematics up from a #35 ranking into the top 20 publics; move environmental sciences up from #25 into the top 20; and move engineering up from #53 into the top 50.

To help accomplish the above STEM field improvements and to address a couple other USN&WR metrics, the university promised to spend appropriated preeminence money as follows:

1) $27 million for faculty recruitment (in the above mentioned STEM fields).
2) $3 million to recruit national academy members (in the above mentioned STEM fields).
3) $16 million for recruiting STEM ready students.
4) $10 million to enhance campus entrepreneurship (including hiring entrepreneurs in residence)
5) $9 million for curriculum changes aimed at job placement and critical thinking.
6) $10 million toward improving retention and graduation rates.

BTW, number four above is a likely nod to conservative higher education reformers like those that ousted Powers at Texas."


"Florida State's leadership team indicated in the agreed to top 25 plan that the university planned to spend $30 million total on hiring new STEM faculty. A $30 million total investment in STEM faculty divided by a total $75 million five-year appropriation equals 40%. Guess what, the $6 million thus far spent on new STEM faculty divided by the $15 million appropriated to date also equals 40%. If we are following a balanced implementation model, we seem on schedule.

And I care not what anyone buys. It is a fact that Sandy D'Alemberte held one day per week for the Foundation. It is also a fact that then Foundation president, Jeff Robison, not in-often scrambled to appropriately fill that day each and every week. Typically Jeff and Sandy flew on the state plane (FSU now has its own) for a day. Often times though they'd graft development work onto Sandy's otherwise substantial travel calendar (conferences, meetings, etc.). On occasion they'd even work in Tallahassee. By the way, a day doesn't mean eight hours. Many days included multiple daytime meetings including business lunch. They also included prospect dinners, late cocktails with a donor, etc.

It is also a fact that TK - especially after about the first year to eighteen months on the job - devoted FAR less time to fundraising than Sandy. By the end of his tenure Wetherell, in fact, barely traveled for development purposes. Mind you that many deans and pretty much all academic fundraisers privately expressed relief at TK's disengagement because they feared what he might say to a prospect. (I'm not kidding.) To his credit, Wetherell did envision, raise money for, and build the new president's house (important for hosting intimate events with high-end prospects). He also substantially improved/remodeled the presidents box, which is used to host existing and prospective donors (generally at the $100k level and above) during football weekends.

I should add that our presidents spend most of their development travel time traveling in Florida and to metro Atlanta because that is BY FAR where the bulk of our alumni live. Do they travel to other large cities for development? Absolutely. But you're more likely to see an FSU president doing development work in Orlando, Tampa-St. Pete, West Palm, Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Atlanta, Jacksonville, and Sarasota than in Chicago, New York or LA.

Might a fair critique of Barron be that he at times seemed more provost than president? Perhaps. I personally do share the popular view that a president should devote far more than 50% of their time to external matters - governmental relations (city, state & federal), development work, FSU Trustee and Board of Governors relations, friend raising/alumni affairs, networking with peers, etc.- than internal. But the suggestion that the next FSU president will devote more than 50% of his or her time specifically on development is inaccurate.

Good presidents create a positive fundraising environment by deed and tone, provide resources to and demand results from subordinates, say "thank you" a lot for gifts already realized, and casually interact with a lot of donors and prospective donors at various events. But they typically only aggressively cultivate a very select group of top-end prospects because that is the best use of limited time.

As an anecdotal point of reference, my wife raised three seven-figure gifts last fiscal year. Only one met her dean face to face before closing and that meeting was on campus, brief and rather incidental. (I should though point out that her current dean is far more hands off than any with whom she's ever worked.) All three will meet the university president for the first time this fall (in the presidents box). This type transaction is the norm far more often than most who haven't worked in the business realize."