Leadership and Self-Deception
— We can be hard and invite productivity and commitment, or we can be hard and invite resistance and ill will. The choice isn’t to be hard or not, it’s to be in the box or not. (seeing people as people or as objects)
— There’s something deeper than behavior that determines our influence on others.
— self-betrayal: an act contrary to what I feel I should do for another
o when I betray myself I start to see the world in a way that justifies my self-betrayal
— certain “boxes” become character and we carry them around with us
o we don’t need to betray in order to go into those boxes
o we carry these self-justifying images with us into new situations— we’re already in the box
o if people act in ways that challenge self-justifying image we perceive them as threats
— when I’m in the box I need to feel justified in being there
— when I’m in the box I need people to cause trouble for me; I need problems
— one can do almost any behavior — ‘soft’, ‘hard’— in the box or out of it
— in the box I get what I need most when I’m run over— my justification
— when I’m in the box I’m self-deceived, blind to the truth about myself and others
o the box undercuts my efforts to obtain the outcomes I want
— collusion: when two or more people are in their boxes toward each other, mutually betraying themselves
— by simply being in the box I provoke in others the very behavior I say I hate in them
o in the box we obtain mutual mistreatment and mutual justification
— in the box I can’t focus on results because I’m focusing on myself
— when I’m blaming others I’m not doing it because I want (or feel they need) to improve, I’m doing it because their shortcomings justify my failure to improve
— self-deception is the germ that creates the disease of self-deception
o symptoms: lack of motivation, commitment
o the result: communication problems
o (I saw myself as a leader who was so sure of my brilliant ideas that I couldn’t allow for brilliance in anyone else’s, a leader who felt I was ‘enlightened’, that I needed to see others’ negatives in order to prove my enlightenment; a leader so driven to be the best no one else could be good…hmmm…)
— with self-justifying images that tell me that I’m brilliant, enlightened, the best I was provoking all kinds of collusions in other people’s boxes
— the more I took responsibility for my team’s performance the more mistrusted they felt
— when you feel that you want to be out of the box for someone, in that moment you are already out
— if I try to get out of the box by changing others I’ll end up provoking others to give me reasons to stay in the box
o coping with others has the same deficiency
o it’s just another way to continue blaming
o leaving doesn't work either— the box goes with you
— in the box I end up communicating my box, whether I’m a skilled communicator or not
— the box itself is deeper than behavior
o the way out of the box has to be deeper than behavior
— the box is a metaphor for how I’m resisting others
o my self-betrayal isn’t passive
o I’m actively resisting what the humanity of others calls me to do for them
— in the moment we cease resisting others we’re liberated from the box
o the people we’re resisting are right before our eyes
— I can be in the box and out of it towards different people
— in the moment that I see another person with needs, hopes, and worries as real and legitimate as my own I’m out of the box
— we live insecurely when we’re in the box, desperate to show that we’re justified
— when we’re overwhelmed it’s our desperation to prove something about ourselves that is overwhelming
— it’s far better to recognize other people’s boxes without blaming them for being in the box
— success as a leader depends on being free of self-betrayal
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Predictably Irrational— Beer and Free Lunches
beer and free lunches
Standard economics assumes that we are rational— that we know all the pertinent information about out decisions, that we can calculate the value of the different options we face, and that we are cognitively unhindered in weighing the ramifications of each potential choice. The result is that we are presumed to be making logical and sensible decisions. And even if we make a wrong decision from time to time, the standard economics perspective is that we will learn from our mistakes either on our own or with the help of ‘market forces.’ On the basis of these assumptions, economists draw far-reaching conclusions about everything from shopping trends to law to public policy. (239)
Under these assumptions, everyone in the marketplace is trying to maximize profit and striving to optimize his experiences. As a consequence, economic theory asserts that there are no free lunches— if there were any, someone would have already found them and extracted their value.
Behavioral economists, on the other hand, believe that people are susceptible to irrelevant influences from their immediate environment (which we call context effects), irrelevant emotions, shortsightedness, and other forms or irrationality.
The good news is these mistakes provide opportunities for improvement…there are tools, methods, and policies that can help all of us make better decisions and as a consequence achieve what we desire. (240) [saving for retirement, health care, etc.]
Standard economics assumes that we are rational— that we know all the pertinent information about out decisions, that we can calculate the value of the different options we face, and that we are cognitively unhindered in weighing the ramifications of each potential choice. The result is that we are presumed to be making logical and sensible decisions. And even if we make a wrong decision from time to time, the standard economics perspective is that we will learn from our mistakes either on our own or with the help of ‘market forces.’ On the basis of these assumptions, economists draw far-reaching conclusions about everything from shopping trends to law to public policy. (239)
Under these assumptions, everyone in the marketplace is trying to maximize profit and striving to optimize his experiences. As a consequence, economic theory asserts that there are no free lunches— if there were any, someone would have already found them and extracted their value.
Behavioral economists, on the other hand, believe that people are susceptible to irrelevant influences from their immediate environment (which we call context effects), irrelevant emotions, shortsightedness, and other forms or irrationality.
The good news is these mistakes provide opportunities for improvement…there are tools, methods, and policies that can help all of us make better decisions and as a consequence achieve what we desire. (240) [saving for retirement, health care, etc.]
Predictably Irrational— The Effect of Expectations
keeping doors open
We might not realize it, but in every case we give something up for those options…in a modern democracy people are beset not by a lack of opportunity, but by a dizzying abundance of it. (148)
What we need to do is to consciously start closing some of our doors…we have an irrational compulsion to keep doors open. (150)
the effect of expectations
When we believe beforehand that something will be good, therefore, it generally will be good— and when we think it will be bad, it will be bad.
Which type of input is more valuable— knowledge before the experience or an input of information after an experience has taken place?
That’s what marketing is all about— providing information that will heighten someone’s anticipated and real pleasure. But do they really? (166)
the power of price— why a 50-cent aspirin can do what a penny aspirin can’t
prices drive the placebo effect
Are we doomed to get lower benefits every time we get a discount? If we rely on our irrational instincts, we will. If we see a discounted item, we will instinctively assume that its quality is less than that of the full-price item— and then in fact we will make it so. What’s the remedy? If we stop and rationally consider the product versus the price, will we be able to break free of the unconscious urge to discount quality along with the price? The effect of discounts is largely an unconscious reaction to lower prices. (187)
the context of our character— why are we dishonest and what can we do about it?
Adam Smith: “Nature, when she formed man for society, endowed him with an original desire to please, and an aversion to offend his brethren. She taught him to feel pleasure in their favourable, and pain in their unfavourable regard.”
“The success of most people…almost always depends upon the favour and good opinion of their neighbors and equals; and without a tolerably regular conduct these can be very seldom be obtained. The good old proverb, therefore, that honesty is always the best policy, holds, in such situations, almost always perfectly true.”
Smith’s theory had a darker corollary: since people engage in a cost-benefit analysis to honesty, they can also engage in a cost-benefit analysis to be dishonest… individuals are only honest to the extent that it benefits them (including their desire to please others). (202)
Sigmund Freud: …as we grow up in society we internalize the social virtues— i.e. the superego. In general the superego is pleased when we comply with society’s ethics, and unhappy when we don’t. Such acts stimulate the reward centers of our brain and make us content. (203)
When we are removed from any benchmarks of ethical thought we tend to stray into dishonesty. But if we are reminded of morality at the moment we are tempted then we are much more lokely to be honest. (213)
the context of our character, part II— why dealing with cash makes us more honest
When we look at the world around us, much of the dishonesty we see involves cheating that is one step removed from cash. (218)
…non-monetary currencies can lead us astray. They let us bypass our conscience and freely explore the benefits of dishonesty. (227)
Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”…it is even more difficult to get a man to understand something when he is dealing with non-monetary currencies. (227)
We might not realize it, but in every case we give something up for those options…in a modern democracy people are beset not by a lack of opportunity, but by a dizzying abundance of it. (148)
What we need to do is to consciously start closing some of our doors…we have an irrational compulsion to keep doors open. (150)
the effect of expectations
When we believe beforehand that something will be good, therefore, it generally will be good— and when we think it will be bad, it will be bad.
Which type of input is more valuable— knowledge before the experience or an input of information after an experience has taken place?
That’s what marketing is all about— providing information that will heighten someone’s anticipated and real pleasure. But do they really? (166)
the power of price— why a 50-cent aspirin can do what a penny aspirin can’t
prices drive the placebo effect
Are we doomed to get lower benefits every time we get a discount? If we rely on our irrational instincts, we will. If we see a discounted item, we will instinctively assume that its quality is less than that of the full-price item— and then in fact we will make it so. What’s the remedy? If we stop and rationally consider the product versus the price, will we be able to break free of the unconscious urge to discount quality along with the price? The effect of discounts is largely an unconscious reaction to lower prices. (187)
the context of our character— why are we dishonest and what can we do about it?
Adam Smith: “Nature, when she formed man for society, endowed him with an original desire to please, and an aversion to offend his brethren. She taught him to feel pleasure in their favourable, and pain in their unfavourable regard.”
“The success of most people…almost always depends upon the favour and good opinion of their neighbors and equals; and without a tolerably regular conduct these can be very seldom be obtained. The good old proverb, therefore, that honesty is always the best policy, holds, in such situations, almost always perfectly true.”
Smith’s theory had a darker corollary: since people engage in a cost-benefit analysis to honesty, they can also engage in a cost-benefit analysis to be dishonest… individuals are only honest to the extent that it benefits them (including their desire to please others). (202)
Sigmund Freud: …as we grow up in society we internalize the social virtues— i.e. the superego. In general the superego is pleased when we comply with society’s ethics, and unhappy when we don’t. Such acts stimulate the reward centers of our brain and make us content. (203)
When we are removed from any benchmarks of ethical thought we tend to stray into dishonesty. But if we are reminded of morality at the moment we are tempted then we are much more lokely to be honest. (213)
the context of our character, part II— why dealing with cash makes us more honest
When we look at the world around us, much of the dishonesty we see involves cheating that is one step removed from cash. (218)
…non-monetary currencies can lead us astray. They let us bypass our conscience and freely explore the benefits of dishonesty. (227)
Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”…it is even more difficult to get a man to understand something when he is dealing with non-monetary currencies. (227)
Predictably Irrational— The High Price of Ownership
the high price of ownership
Ownership pervades our lives and, in a strange way, shapes many of the things we do. Adam Smith wrote, ‘Every man (and woman)… lives by exchanging, or becomes in some measure a merchant, and the society itself grows to be what is properly a commercial society.’ (133)
Three irrational quirks in our human nature:
1) we fall in love with what we already have.
2) we focus on what we might lose, rather than what we might gain
3) we assume other people will see the transaction from the same perspective as we do (‘one man’s floor is another man’s ceiling’) (134)
Another peculiarity is that we can begin to feel ownership even before we own something.
“virtual ownership” is one mainspring of the advertising industry. (136)
Ownership pervades our lives and, in a strange way, shapes many of the things we do. Adam Smith wrote, ‘Every man (and woman)… lives by exchanging, or becomes in some measure a merchant, and the society itself grows to be what is properly a commercial society.’ (133)
Three irrational quirks in our human nature:
1) we fall in love with what we already have.
2) we focus on what we might lose, rather than what we might gain
3) we assume other people will see the transaction from the same perspective as we do (‘one man’s floor is another man’s ceiling’) (134)
Another peculiarity is that we can begin to feel ownership even before we own something.
“virtual ownership” is one mainspring of the advertising industry. (136)
Predictably Irrational— The Cost of Zero Cost, The Cost of Social Norms
the cost of zero cost
• zero price effect: Most transactions have an upside and a downside, but when something is Free! We forget the downside… humans are intrinsically afraid of loss. (54)
…we can use Free! To drive social policy. Want people to drive electric cars? Don’t just lower vehicle registration fees— eliminate them., so that you have created Free! (62)
the cost of social norms
…we live simultaneously in two different worlds— one where social norms prevail, and the other where market norms make the rules…. Social norms are wrapped up in our social nature and our need for community…. Instant paybacks are not required.
…the second world, the one governed by market norms, is very different…. The exchanges are sharp-edged: wages, prices, rents, interest, and costs-benefits. Such market relationships are not necessarily evil or mean— in fact, they also include self-reliance, inventiveness, individualism— but they do not imply comparable benefits and prompt payments… you get what you pay for. (68)
…people are willing to work for free (social norm) or for a reasonable wage; but offer them just a small payment and they will walk away. (73)
…for market norms to emerge, it is sufficient to mention money (even when no money changes hands). (74)
Thinking about money, then, made people more self-reliant and less willing to ask for help… and less willing to help others… they displayed many of the characteristics of the market: they were more selfish and self-reliant; they wanted to spend more time alone; they were more likely to select tasks that required individual input rather than teamwork— just thinking about money makes us behave as most economists believe we behave— and less like the social animals we are in our daily lives. (75)
…when a social norm collides with a market norm, the social norm goes away for a long time… social relationships are not easy to reestablish. (77)
• zero price effect: Most transactions have an upside and a downside, but when something is Free! We forget the downside… humans are intrinsically afraid of loss. (54)
…we can use Free! To drive social policy. Want people to drive electric cars? Don’t just lower vehicle registration fees— eliminate them., so that you have created Free! (62)
the cost of social norms
…we live simultaneously in two different worlds— one where social norms prevail, and the other where market norms make the rules…. Social norms are wrapped up in our social nature and our need for community…. Instant paybacks are not required.
…the second world, the one governed by market norms, is very different…. The exchanges are sharp-edged: wages, prices, rents, interest, and costs-benefits. Such market relationships are not necessarily evil or mean— in fact, they also include self-reliance, inventiveness, individualism— but they do not imply comparable benefits and prompt payments… you get what you pay for. (68)
…people are willing to work for free (social norm) or for a reasonable wage; but offer them just a small payment and they will walk away. (73)
…for market norms to emerge, it is sufficient to mention money (even when no money changes hands). (74)
Thinking about money, then, made people more self-reliant and less willing to ask for help… and less willing to help others… they displayed many of the characteristics of the market: they were more selfish and self-reliant; they wanted to spend more time alone; they were more likely to select tasks that required individual input rather than teamwork— just thinking about money makes us behave as most economists believe we behave— and less like the social animals we are in our daily lives. (75)
…when a social norm collides with a market norm, the social norm goes away for a long time… social relationships are not easy to reestablish. (77)
Predictably Irrational— The Fallacy of Supply and Demand
the fallacy of supply and demand
• arbitrary coherence: although initial prices are ‘arbitrary,’ once those prices are established in our minds they will shape not only present prices but also future prices (this makes them coherent). (26)
Initial prices are largely ‘arbitrary’ and can be influenced by responses to random questions; but once those prices are established in our minds, they shape not only what we are willing to pay for an item, but also how much we are willing to pay for related products (this makes them coherent). (30)
…anchors have an enduring effect for present prices as well as for future prices. (35)
…our first impressions resonate over a long sequence of decisions. First impressions are important… (35)
• herding: when we assume that something is good (or bad) on the basis of other people’s behavior, and our own actions follow suit. (36)
• self-herding: when we believe something is good (or bad) on the basis of our own previous behavior… we feel more strongly that we are acting on our own preferences based on past behaviors… we line up behind ourselves. (37)
According to economic theory, we base these decisions on our fundamental values— our likes and dislikes…Could it be that we made arbitrary decisions at some point in the past and have built our lives on them ever since, assuming that the original decisions were wise? (43)
We should pay particular attention to the first decision we make in what is going to be a long stream of decisions. When we face such a decision, it might seem to us that this is just one decision, without large consequences; but in fact the power of the first decision can have such a long-lasting effect that it will percolate into our future decisions for years to come. Given this effect, the first decision is crucial, and we should give it an appropriate amount of attention. (44)
Contrary to traditional economics, consumers willing to pay can easily be manipulated (by supply-side variables: advertising, promotions, displays, MSRPs, etc.), and this means that consumers don’t in fact have a good handle on their own preferences and the prices they are willing to pay for different goods and services….instead of consumers’ willingness to pay influencing market prices, the causality is somewhat reversed and it is market prices themselves that influence consumers’ willingness to pay. What this means is that demand is not, in fact, a completely separate force from supply.(45)
…in many cases we make decisions in the marketplace that may not reflect how much pleasure we can get from different items. Now if we can’t accurately compute these pleasure values, but frequently follow arbitrary anchors instead, then it is not clear that the opportunity to trade is necessarily going to make us better off. (48)
• arbitrary coherence: although initial prices are ‘arbitrary,’ once those prices are established in our minds they will shape not only present prices but also future prices (this makes them coherent). (26)
Initial prices are largely ‘arbitrary’ and can be influenced by responses to random questions; but once those prices are established in our minds, they shape not only what we are willing to pay for an item, but also how much we are willing to pay for related products (this makes them coherent). (30)
…anchors have an enduring effect for present prices as well as for future prices. (35)
…our first impressions resonate over a long sequence of decisions. First impressions are important… (35)
• herding: when we assume that something is good (or bad) on the basis of other people’s behavior, and our own actions follow suit. (36)
• self-herding: when we believe something is good (or bad) on the basis of our own previous behavior… we feel more strongly that we are acting on our own preferences based on past behaviors… we line up behind ourselves. (37)
According to economic theory, we base these decisions on our fundamental values— our likes and dislikes…Could it be that we made arbitrary decisions at some point in the past and have built our lives on them ever since, assuming that the original decisions were wise? (43)
We should pay particular attention to the first decision we make in what is going to be a long stream of decisions. When we face such a decision, it might seem to us that this is just one decision, without large consequences; but in fact the power of the first decision can have such a long-lasting effect that it will percolate into our future decisions for years to come. Given this effect, the first decision is crucial, and we should give it an appropriate amount of attention. (44)
Contrary to traditional economics, consumers willing to pay can easily be manipulated (by supply-side variables: advertising, promotions, displays, MSRPs, etc.), and this means that consumers don’t in fact have a good handle on their own preferences and the prices they are willing to pay for different goods and services….instead of consumers’ willingness to pay influencing market prices, the causality is somewhat reversed and it is market prices themselves that influence consumers’ willingness to pay. What this means is that demand is not, in fact, a completely separate force from supply.(45)
…in many cases we make decisions in the marketplace that may not reflect how much pleasure we can get from different items. Now if we can’t accurately compute these pleasure values, but frequently follow arbitrary anchors instead, then it is not clear that the opportunity to trade is necessarily going to make us better off. (48)
Predictably Irrational— The Truth about Relativity
Predictably Irrational
Dan Arielly
In economics…rationality provides the foundation for economic theories, predictions, and recommendations…. we hold the basic beliefs about human nature on which economics is built— the simple and compelling idea that we are capable of making the right decisions for ourselves. (xix)
This book is about human irrationality….we are really less rational than standard economic theory assumes. Moreover, these irrational behaviors are neither random nor senseless. They are systematic, and since we repeat them again and again, predictable. (xx)
the truth about relativity
…humans rarely choose things in absolute terms. We don’t have an internal value meter that tells us how much things are worth. Rather we focus on the relative advantage of one thing over another, and estimate value accordingly. (2)
…most people don’t know what they want unless they see it in context. (3)
…we are always looking at the things around us in relation to others. (7)
… we not only tend to compare things with one another but also tend to focus on comparing things that are easily comparable— and avoid things that cannot be compared easily. (8)
This is the problem with relativity— we look at our decisions in a relative way and compare them locally to the available alternative. (20)
That’s the lesson we can all learn: the more we have, the more we want. And the only cure is to break the cycle of relativity. (21)
Dan Arielly
In economics…rationality provides the foundation for economic theories, predictions, and recommendations…. we hold the basic beliefs about human nature on which economics is built— the simple and compelling idea that we are capable of making the right decisions for ourselves. (xix)
This book is about human irrationality….we are really less rational than standard economic theory assumes. Moreover, these irrational behaviors are neither random nor senseless. They are systematic, and since we repeat them again and again, predictable. (xx)
the truth about relativity
…humans rarely choose things in absolute terms. We don’t have an internal value meter that tells us how much things are worth. Rather we focus on the relative advantage of one thing over another, and estimate value accordingly. (2)
…most people don’t know what they want unless they see it in context. (3)
…we are always looking at the things around us in relation to others. (7)
… we not only tend to compare things with one another but also tend to focus on comparing things that are easily comparable— and avoid things that cannot be compared easily. (8)
This is the problem with relativity— we look at our decisions in a relative way and compare them locally to the available alternative. (20)
That’s the lesson we can all learn: the more we have, the more we want. And the only cure is to break the cycle of relativity. (21)
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Malcolm Gladwell— What the Dog Saw
Why Problems Like Homelessness May Be Easier to Solve That to Manage
Power Law Distribution— where all the activity in a distribution graph is not in the middle (like a normal distribution) but at one extreme
In the 1980s, when homelessness first surfaced as a national issue, the assumption was that the problem fit a normal distribution: that the vast majority of the homeless were in the same state of semipermanent distress.
Homelessness doesn't have a normal distribution, it has a power-law distribution— 80% of the homeless (in a Philadelphia study) were in and out really quickly (i.e. 1-2 days) and they never came back.
The chronically homeless cost health care and social services systems far more than anyone had ever anticipated...In Boston, 119 chronically homeless, over the course of five years, accounted for 18,834 emergency-room visits, accumulating costs of roughly $18 million.
...the kind of money it would take to solve the homeless problem could well be less than the kind of money it took to ignore it...Simply running soup kitchens and shelters allows the chronically homeless to remain chronically homeless. You build a shelter and a soup kitchen if you think that homelessness is a problem with a broad and unmanageable middle. But if it's a problem at the fringe it can be solved.
...take homeless policy from the old idea of funding programs that serve homless people endlessly and invest in results that actually end homelessness.
The idea that the sickest and most troubled of the homeless can be stabilized and eventually employed is only a hope. The current philosophy of welfare that government assistance should be temporary and conditional, to avoid creating dependency. But chronically homeless do not respond to disincentives and sanctions (i.e. getting put back out on the street) in a normal way.
Power-law homeless policy has to do the opposite of normal distribution social policy. It should create dependency: you want people who have been outside the system to come inside and rebuild their lives under supervision.
That is what is so perplexing about power-law homeless policy. From an economic perspective the approach makes perfect sense. But from a moral perspective it doesn't seem fair. Social benefits are supposed to have some kind of moral justification. (Giving the homeless guy passed out on the sidewalk an apartment has a different rationale. It's simply about efficiency.)
We also believe that the distribution of social benefits should not be arbitrary. We don't give only to some poor mothers, or to a random handful of disabled veterans. We give to everyone who meets a formal criterion, and the moral credibility of government assistance derives, in part, from this universality.
There isn't enough money to go around, and to try to help everyone a little bit— to observe the principle of universality— isn't as cost-effective as helping a few people a lot. Being fair in this case, means providing shelters and soup kitchens, and shelters and soup kitchens don't solve the problem of homelessness.
Our usual moral intuitions are of little use, then, when it comes to a few hard cases. Power-law problems leave us with an unpleasant choice. We can be true to our principles or we can fix the problem. We cannot do both.
Solving problems that have power-law distributions doesn't just violate our moral intuitions; it violates our political intuitions as well. It's hard not to conclude, in the end, that the reason we treated the homeless as one hopeless undifferentiated group for so long is not simply that we didn't know better. It's that we didn't want to know better. It was easier the old way.
Power-law solutions have little appeal to the right, because they involve special treatment for people who do not deserve special treatment; and they have little appeal to the left, because their emphasis on efficiency over fairness suggests the cold number-crunching...cost/benefit analysis.
Power Law Distribution— where all the activity in a distribution graph is not in the middle (like a normal distribution) but at one extreme
In the 1980s, when homelessness first surfaced as a national issue, the assumption was that the problem fit a normal distribution: that the vast majority of the homeless were in the same state of semipermanent distress.
Homelessness doesn't have a normal distribution, it has a power-law distribution— 80% of the homeless (in a Philadelphia study) were in and out really quickly (i.e. 1-2 days) and they never came back.
The chronically homeless cost health care and social services systems far more than anyone had ever anticipated...In Boston, 119 chronically homeless, over the course of five years, accounted for 18,834 emergency-room visits, accumulating costs of roughly $18 million.
...the kind of money it would take to solve the homeless problem could well be less than the kind of money it took to ignore it...Simply running soup kitchens and shelters allows the chronically homeless to remain chronically homeless. You build a shelter and a soup kitchen if you think that homelessness is a problem with a broad and unmanageable middle. But if it's a problem at the fringe it can be solved.
...take homeless policy from the old idea of funding programs that serve homless people endlessly and invest in results that actually end homelessness.
The idea that the sickest and most troubled of the homeless can be stabilized and eventually employed is only a hope. The current philosophy of welfare that government assistance should be temporary and conditional, to avoid creating dependency. But chronically homeless do not respond to disincentives and sanctions (i.e. getting put back out on the street) in a normal way.
Power-law homeless policy has to do the opposite of normal distribution social policy. It should create dependency: you want people who have been outside the system to come inside and rebuild their lives under supervision.
That is what is so perplexing about power-law homeless policy. From an economic perspective the approach makes perfect sense. But from a moral perspective it doesn't seem fair. Social benefits are supposed to have some kind of moral justification. (Giving the homeless guy passed out on the sidewalk an apartment has a different rationale. It's simply about efficiency.)
We also believe that the distribution of social benefits should not be arbitrary. We don't give only to some poor mothers, or to a random handful of disabled veterans. We give to everyone who meets a formal criterion, and the moral credibility of government assistance derives, in part, from this universality.
There isn't enough money to go around, and to try to help everyone a little bit— to observe the principle of universality— isn't as cost-effective as helping a few people a lot. Being fair in this case, means providing shelters and soup kitchens, and shelters and soup kitchens don't solve the problem of homelessness.
Our usual moral intuitions are of little use, then, when it comes to a few hard cases. Power-law problems leave us with an unpleasant choice. We can be true to our principles or we can fix the problem. We cannot do both.
Solving problems that have power-law distributions doesn't just violate our moral intuitions; it violates our political intuitions as well. It's hard not to conclude, in the end, that the reason we treated the homeless as one hopeless undifferentiated group for so long is not simply that we didn't know better. It's that we didn't want to know better. It was easier the old way.
Power-law solutions have little appeal to the right, because they involve special treatment for people who do not deserve special treatment; and they have little appeal to the left, because their emphasis on efficiency over fairness suggests the cold number-crunching...cost/benefit analysis.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
The Blue Sweater, Chapter 12, Institutions Matter
God helps those who persevere.
— The Koran
...in any good society, nothing justifies the powerful excluding the powerless from basic opportunities.
...providing incentives for people to do the right thing matters a great deal. Institutions are key in reminding us who we are meant to be and how we are expected to behave as community members and citizens.
Poverty is too complex to be answered with a one-size-fits all approach...
Markets alone won't solve the problems of poverty. Low-income people are invisible to most entrepreneurs, who don't see them as paying customers. Poor distribution, lack of infrastructure, and corruption all add up to failure of markets to deliver to the poor what they want and need at prices they can afford.
What is needed going forward is a philosophy based on human dignity, which all of us need and crave. We can end poverty if we start by looking at all human beings as part of a single global community that recognizes that everyone deserves a chance to build a life worth living.
— The Koran
...in any good society, nothing justifies the powerful excluding the powerless from basic opportunities.
...providing incentives for people to do the right thing matters a great deal. Institutions are key in reminding us who we are meant to be and how we are expected to behave as community members and citizens.
Poverty is too complex to be answered with a one-size-fits all approach...
Markets alone won't solve the problems of poverty. Low-income people are invisible to most entrepreneurs, who don't see them as paying customers. Poor distribution, lack of infrastructure, and corruption all add up to failure of markets to deliver to the poor what they want and need at prices they can afford.
What is needed going forward is a philosophy based on human dignity, which all of us need and crave. We can end poverty if we start by looking at all human beings as part of a single global community that recognizes that everyone deserves a chance to build a life worth living.
The Blue Sweater, Chapter 9, Blue Paint on the Road
There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth; not going all the way, and not starting. — Buddha
Programs serving the poor needed to do a better job of giving people the chance to aim high and believe in themselves— and of holding them accountable for reaching their goals.
...we have to build accountability into all aspects of development— and of philanthropy— and how the world is really connected.
Private initiative and innovation driven by philanthropy were our best hope for finding those ways to give the poor the opportunities they deserved.
Angela Glover Blackwell: ..."minoritarian leadership": "America needs leaders who are comfortable with diversity."
"Individuals in the dominant culture assume the rules work because they've always seemed fair to them. On the other hand, people who view themselves as outsiders have had to learn to navigate the dominant culture in order to be successful. Becoming attuned to how others function and make decisions is a critical skill set we need to inculcate in our next generation of leaders."
"To thine own self be true": Add to this humility, empathy, a sense of curiosity, courage, and plain old hard work, and I was finally seeing the real path to leadership.
...just bringing diverse people together is not enough to foster productive dialogue. More powerful is enabling groups of people to work on a common venture, a common problem.
Leading is a lifelong proposition— and the people who seem least like you are usually the people you need most.
Good public policy must accompany market-oriented solutions that are undergirded with an imperative of moral leadership.
We can't wait around for someone else to change things...
...leadership is about having vision and the moral imagination to put oneself in another's shoes...
Programs serving the poor needed to do a better job of giving people the chance to aim high and believe in themselves— and of holding them accountable for reaching their goals.
...we have to build accountability into all aspects of development— and of philanthropy— and how the world is really connected.
Private initiative and innovation driven by philanthropy were our best hope for finding those ways to give the poor the opportunities they deserved.
Angela Glover Blackwell: ..."minoritarian leadership": "America needs leaders who are comfortable with diversity."
"Individuals in the dominant culture assume the rules work because they've always seemed fair to them. On the other hand, people who view themselves as outsiders have had to learn to navigate the dominant culture in order to be successful. Becoming attuned to how others function and make decisions is a critical skill set we need to inculcate in our next generation of leaders."
"To thine own self be true": Add to this humility, empathy, a sense of curiosity, courage, and plain old hard work, and I was finally seeing the real path to leadership.
...just bringing diverse people together is not enough to foster productive dialogue. More powerful is enabling groups of people to work on a common venture, a common problem.
Leading is a lifelong proposition— and the people who seem least like you are usually the people you need most.
Good public policy must accompany market-oriented solutions that are undergirded with an imperative of moral leadership.
We can't wait around for someone else to change things...
...leadership is about having vision and the moral imagination to put oneself in another's shoes...
Rebecca Soon, Solutions Pacific
On Monday we met with Rebecca Soon, CEO of Soultions Pacific. She is by far the most knowledgeable person I have encountered with respect to micro-lending in Hawaii. She used to be in charge of Economic Development programs at Pacific Gateway Center. She's also been contracted to provide Technical Assistance (TA) for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs Malama Loan Program. She mentioned that the OHA Loan program has very subjective criteria that look for five key attributes: FICO score, number of credit inquiries, amount of credit on each account, debt to equity ratio, and one other.
PGC, by contrast, will fund people who have no credit rating due to their refugee status. They have a community review board— usually two lenders and one business person— which assesses each loan application.
Ms. Soon highlighted that there is a direct correlation between the amount of technical assistance received by a borrower and their success in repaying the loan. The higher the risk of the client, the higher the amount of technical assistance needed.
She also told us about Individual Development Accounts that incentivize saving for low income borrowers. The money can be used for business, education, and home ownership, and all funds saved will be matched by participating banks.
A potential partnership for us could be the Maui Economic Opportunity Business Development Corporation. They make loans as low as $500 and as high as $10,000 for similar goals that we are proposing. They offer business planning classes, taught by the MEO BDC CEO Susie Thieman who was named Minority Small Business Champion of the Year for Maui County in 2006 by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), and in 2009 the SBA named her the Financial Services Champion for Maui County. Quite a model for us to follow.
PGC, by contrast, will fund people who have no credit rating due to their refugee status. They have a community review board— usually two lenders and one business person— which assesses each loan application.
Ms. Soon highlighted that there is a direct correlation between the amount of technical assistance received by a borrower and their success in repaying the loan. The higher the risk of the client, the higher the amount of technical assistance needed.
She also told us about Individual Development Accounts that incentivize saving for low income borrowers. The money can be used for business, education, and home ownership, and all funds saved will be matched by participating banks.
A potential partnership for us could be the Maui Economic Opportunity Business Development Corporation. They make loans as low as $500 and as high as $10,000 for similar goals that we are proposing. They offer business planning classes, taught by the MEO BDC CEO Susie Thieman who was named Minority Small Business Champion of the Year for Maui County in 2006 by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), and in 2009 the SBA named her the Financial Services Champion for Maui County. Quite a model for us to follow.
Kuleana minutes— April 19, 2011
Kuleana Project MEETING SUMMARY Micro-Lending/Support Team
Date Time Location
Monday April 19, 2011 4:45pm – 5:55pm Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku St.
Leads Attendees
▪ Fran Gendrano
▪ John Cheever ▪ Rona Fukumoto
▪ Jessica Horiuchi
▪ Kevin Kawahara ▪ Michael Morales
▪ Ben Ancheta (Absent)
▪ Lorene Yap ▪ Yvette Maskrey (Absent)
▪ Kim Horan
▪ Char Dote (Absent)
TODAY’S AGENDA
1. Meeting was called to order at 4:45pm
2. Kuleana Options Discussion:
a. John C. Meeting Summary
i. John C. met with Ho’ala Greevy and advised on the process for the Malama loans.
ii. John C. noted from the April 4th meeting proposed creating 5 (1) hour training classes as opposed to a semester long KCC entrepreneurship class.
1. John C. met with Susan Dick, KCC professor who runs the Entrepreneurs class. Susan advised that since her class is a semester long she does see high dropout rate. Suggested to bring a “box” that contains all their receipts, etc. to help organize.
iii. Small business development consortium(?) (SBDC) provides students/clients more academic structure and may not be appropriate for prospective Kuleana clients.
iv. Jessica H. noted that the clients of SBDC may have some experience and are not new to the small business process. Also noted that SBDC contracts out 3rd party support for those who are new and may be at a high risk to fail.
1. Kevin K. asked what is the criteria to make an assessment/evaluation of those that fit into the high risk category.
2. Schedule a meeting to review with 3rd party contractor their processes. (Jessica H.)
v. John Rapoon?, Executive Director of the Key Project advised they could potentially be our fiscal sponsor for AUW. Ask Norm Baker if this is acceptable during April 26th meeting, (John C.)
1. Meeting is scheduled for April 26 from 9:30 to 11:30am with Norm Baker. (John C.)
vi. Kim H. noted that if there other funding entities that are similar then we should look at aligning with them, since we do not have a proven track record at this time.
b. Funding/Client Discussion
i. Aloha United Way
1. Application deadline is May 14th.
ii. Gift Foundation
1. Application deadline is May 1st.
3. By-laws Review
a. Noted that we have 11 Board members and we should only have 10. John C. to determine one person to be removed from the Board.
4. Kuleana Document Review
a. Reviewed the Kuleana worthy verses credit worthy comparison. John C. created a document that the team reviewed. Updates were noted in the meeting. John to repost after it is edited.
b. Discussed whether we should provide confidential information to the potential client. Team agreed that we should provide general feedback from the form.
i. Rona F. noted that we should create a check box to allow the reference provider the ability to share their comments with the potential client if they would like to do so.
ii. John noted that we should check box to opt out of sharing information. (John C.)
c. Team agreed to ask for at least 3 references: case worker, landlord and personal (not a family member).
d. Team agreed to change the name from reference to recommendation form.
e. Noted that we need to have a process that ensures we are approving the appropriate pool of applicants.
f. Clients will need to meet with an interview panel and provide a presentation. Create a less intimidating name for the process. (John C.)
5. 501(c)3 Application Review
a. No update.
6. Kuleana Networking/Outreach List
i. Goodwill
ii. Aloha United Way
iii. UH
iv. PCF Alumni
v. Young Presidents
vi. Gift Foundation
vii. Iolani Entrepreneur’s Club
b. Beta Applicant Form Review
i. No updates at this time.
7. Other/New Kuleana Business
a. Team agreed to use Bancoh for account. Set up account. (John C.)
b. Call Alison at PID and advise her that we did not get the Innovation Fund funding. (John C.)
c. Follow up with Tom on creating a logo for Kuleana and possibly dinner. (Jessica H.)
d. Initial fundraising goal is to get $5K. Kim H. noted that we should expected donations to be realized once we hit certain milestones. Board is committed to funding the initial goal. Reach out to PCF classmates. (John C.)
8. Meeting adjourned at 6:10pm
UPCOMING MEETINGS/KEY EVENTS
• Next meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 2nd, 4:30pm at Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku Street, Room TBD.
Date Time Location
Monday April 19, 2011 4:45pm – 5:55pm Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku St.
Leads Attendees
▪ Fran Gendrano
▪ John Cheever ▪ Rona Fukumoto
▪ Jessica Horiuchi
▪ Kevin Kawahara ▪ Michael Morales
▪ Ben Ancheta (Absent)
▪ Lorene Yap ▪ Yvette Maskrey (Absent)
▪ Kim Horan
▪ Char Dote (Absent)
TODAY’S AGENDA
1. Meeting was called to order at 4:45pm
2. Kuleana Options Discussion:
a. John C. Meeting Summary
i. John C. met with Ho’ala Greevy and advised on the process for the Malama loans.
ii. John C. noted from the April 4th meeting proposed creating 5 (1) hour training classes as opposed to a semester long KCC entrepreneurship class.
1. John C. met with Susan Dick, KCC professor who runs the Entrepreneurs class. Susan advised that since her class is a semester long she does see high dropout rate. Suggested to bring a “box” that contains all their receipts, etc. to help organize.
iii. Small business development consortium(?) (SBDC) provides students/clients more academic structure and may not be appropriate for prospective Kuleana clients.
iv. Jessica H. noted that the clients of SBDC may have some experience and are not new to the small business process. Also noted that SBDC contracts out 3rd party support for those who are new and may be at a high risk to fail.
1. Kevin K. asked what is the criteria to make an assessment/evaluation of those that fit into the high risk category.
2. Schedule a meeting to review with 3rd party contractor their processes. (Jessica H.)
v. John Rapoon?, Executive Director of the Key Project advised they could potentially be our fiscal sponsor for AUW. Ask Norm Baker if this is acceptable during April 26th meeting, (John C.)
1. Meeting is scheduled for April 26 from 9:30 to 11:30am with Norm Baker. (John C.)
vi. Kim H. noted that if there other funding entities that are similar then we should look at aligning with them, since we do not have a proven track record at this time.
b. Funding/Client Discussion
i. Aloha United Way
1. Application deadline is May 14th.
ii. Gift Foundation
1. Application deadline is May 1st.
3. By-laws Review
a. Noted that we have 11 Board members and we should only have 10. John C. to determine one person to be removed from the Board.
4. Kuleana Document Review
a. Reviewed the Kuleana worthy verses credit worthy comparison. John C. created a document that the team reviewed. Updates were noted in the meeting. John to repost after it is edited.
b. Discussed whether we should provide confidential information to the potential client. Team agreed that we should provide general feedback from the form.
i. Rona F. noted that we should create a check box to allow the reference provider the ability to share their comments with the potential client if they would like to do so.
ii. John noted that we should check box to opt out of sharing information. (John C.)
c. Team agreed to ask for at least 3 references: case worker, landlord and personal (not a family member).
d. Team agreed to change the name from reference to recommendation form.
e. Noted that we need to have a process that ensures we are approving the appropriate pool of applicants.
f. Clients will need to meet with an interview panel and provide a presentation. Create a less intimidating name for the process. (John C.)
5. 501(c)3 Application Review
a. No update.
6. Kuleana Networking/Outreach List
i. Goodwill
ii. Aloha United Way
iii. UH
iv. PCF Alumni
v. Young Presidents
vi. Gift Foundation
vii. Iolani Entrepreneur’s Club
b. Beta Applicant Form Review
i. No updates at this time.
7. Other/New Kuleana Business
a. Team agreed to use Bancoh for account. Set up account. (John C.)
b. Call Alison at PID and advise her that we did not get the Innovation Fund funding. (John C.)
c. Follow up with Tom on creating a logo for Kuleana and possibly dinner. (Jessica H.)
d. Initial fundraising goal is to get $5K. Kim H. noted that we should expected donations to be realized once we hit certain milestones. Board is committed to funding the initial goal. Reach out to PCF classmates. (John C.)
8. Meeting adjourned at 6:10pm
UPCOMING MEETINGS/KEY EVENTS
• Next meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 2nd, 4:30pm at Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku Street, Room TBD.
Kuleana minutes— April 4, 2011
Kuleana Project MEETING SUMMARY Micro-Lending/Support Team
Date Time Location
Monday April 4, 2011 4:50pm – 5:55pm Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku St.
Leads Attendees
▪ Fran Gendrano (Absent)
▪ John Cheever ▪ Rona Fukumoto
▪ Jessica Horiuchi (Absent)
▪ Kevin Kawahara ▪ Michael Morales
▪ Ben Ancheta
▪ Lorene Yap ▪ Yvette Maskrey (Absent)
▪ Kim Horan
▪ Char Dote (Absent)
TODAY’S AGENDA
1. Meeting was called to order at 4:50pm
2. Kuleana Options Discussion:
a. OHA Meeting with Quinton Flores (John C. and Kim H.)
i. $28M funds for their Malama loans.
1. Emergency loans up to $7500 and Malama loans are up to $75K.
ii. Tier 1 and 2 are high FICA scores at least 650 credit scores and probably why they have not been able to get many loans approved.
iii. Could we tie into OHA and get the borrower’s credit worthy for Malama loans.
iv. Kim H. described the Malama process and that it is still a traditional loan process. The Kuleana model is a bit different since it is promoting mentorship and guidance.
v. CFO of OHA is a major proponent of microlending. Kim H. advised that we should put something together and send to the CFO of OHA and schedule meeting. (John C.)
vi. OHA needs a vehicle to get the money disbursed.
vii. Explore issues and risks that OHA is having with obtaining qualified borrowers and understand how the Kuleana model can be aligned. (John C.)
b. Hawaii Angels
i. Do we want to review and look at a potential partnership with Hawaii Angels?
ii. Invite Chenoa Farnsworth to our next meeting. (John C.)
c. Bancoh Loans
i. Danny Kim has offered a person to service loans.
ii. Do we want to follow up with Danny Kim?
iii. Noted that we need to document the process further.
d. Funding/Client Discussion
i. We should wait to begin fund raising until after we obtain our 501c3 approval.
ii. Have the potential client come and meet with us to explain what the barriers to entry have been and what Kuleana should focus on. Client to come in on April 19th.
iii. Noted to obtain more stories.
iv. Kim H. asked on whether or not we have formalized documentation of our partnerships. Kevin K. noted that we expected our noted officials would be doing the work and we formalized a banking partnership for the loan process piece.
e. Aloha United Way
i. Need to have a 501c3 to apply for funds.
ii. We could apply through the breakthrough category, which is related to financial stability. Should find out if PID is applying in the breakthrough category and if not then it may not be a conflict of interests. Follow with PID. (John C. and Jessica H.)
1. Meeting is scheduled for April 26 from 9:30 to 11:30am with Norm Baker. (John C. and Kim H.)
2. Fill out application form. (John C. and Lorene Y.)
3. By-laws Review
a. None.
4. 501(c)3 Application Review
a. IRS has received application and we will be receiving a letter as to the determination of our application.
b. John C. noted that we could set up 5 (1) hour training classes as opposed to a 4 month KCC entrepreneurship class.
5. Other Kuleana Business
a. Other promotional business
b. Kuleana Networking/Outreach Listing
i. Goodwill
ii. Aloha United Way
iii. UH
iv. PCF Alumni
v. Young Presidents
vi. Gift Foundation
vii. Iolani Entrepreneur’s Club
c. Beta Applicant Form Review
i. No updates at this time.
6. New Kuleana Business
a. Need to sure up process for providing loans and then maintain and support the loans.
b. Ask Danny for best practice information on loans and servicing loans. (Ben A.)
c. Mike M. noted that David T. from Hawaii Business Magazine is interested in writing a story about Kuleana when we are ready.
d. John C. is scheduled to speak at the Exchange club in July.
e. Ben A. noted Tom may be a person we should engage to help with branding and logo work.
f. Kim H. noted that we may want to speak to Pia Chock from SBDC. Schedule meeting with Pia and John. (Kim H.)
7. Meeting adjourned at 5:55pm
UPCOMING MEETINGS/KEY EVENTS
• Next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 19th, 4:30pm at Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku Street, Room TBD.
Date Time Location
Monday April 4, 2011 4:50pm – 5:55pm Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku St.
Leads Attendees
▪ Fran Gendrano (Absent)
▪ John Cheever ▪ Rona Fukumoto
▪ Jessica Horiuchi (Absent)
▪ Kevin Kawahara ▪ Michael Morales
▪ Ben Ancheta
▪ Lorene Yap ▪ Yvette Maskrey (Absent)
▪ Kim Horan
▪ Char Dote (Absent)
TODAY’S AGENDA
1. Meeting was called to order at 4:50pm
2. Kuleana Options Discussion:
a. OHA Meeting with Quinton Flores (John C. and Kim H.)
i. $28M funds for their Malama loans.
1. Emergency loans up to $7500 and Malama loans are up to $75K.
ii. Tier 1 and 2 are high FICA scores at least 650 credit scores and probably why they have not been able to get many loans approved.
iii. Could we tie into OHA and get the borrower’s credit worthy for Malama loans.
iv. Kim H. described the Malama process and that it is still a traditional loan process. The Kuleana model is a bit different since it is promoting mentorship and guidance.
v. CFO of OHA is a major proponent of microlending. Kim H. advised that we should put something together and send to the CFO of OHA and schedule meeting. (John C.)
vi. OHA needs a vehicle to get the money disbursed.
vii. Explore issues and risks that OHA is having with obtaining qualified borrowers and understand how the Kuleana model can be aligned. (John C.)
b. Hawaii Angels
i. Do we want to review and look at a potential partnership with Hawaii Angels?
ii. Invite Chenoa Farnsworth to our next meeting. (John C.)
c. Bancoh Loans
i. Danny Kim has offered a person to service loans.
ii. Do we want to follow up with Danny Kim?
iii. Noted that we need to document the process further.
d. Funding/Client Discussion
i. We should wait to begin fund raising until after we obtain our 501c3 approval.
ii. Have the potential client come and meet with us to explain what the barriers to entry have been and what Kuleana should focus on. Client to come in on April 19th.
iii. Noted to obtain more stories.
iv. Kim H. asked on whether or not we have formalized documentation of our partnerships. Kevin K. noted that we expected our noted officials would be doing the work and we formalized a banking partnership for the loan process piece.
e. Aloha United Way
i. Need to have a 501c3 to apply for funds.
ii. We could apply through the breakthrough category, which is related to financial stability. Should find out if PID is applying in the breakthrough category and if not then it may not be a conflict of interests. Follow with PID. (John C. and Jessica H.)
1. Meeting is scheduled for April 26 from 9:30 to 11:30am with Norm Baker. (John C. and Kim H.)
2. Fill out application form. (John C. and Lorene Y.)
3. By-laws Review
a. None.
4. 501(c)3 Application Review
a. IRS has received application and we will be receiving a letter as to the determination of our application.
b. John C. noted that we could set up 5 (1) hour training classes as opposed to a 4 month KCC entrepreneurship class.
5. Other Kuleana Business
a. Other promotional business
b. Kuleana Networking/Outreach Listing
i. Goodwill
ii. Aloha United Way
iii. UH
iv. PCF Alumni
v. Young Presidents
vi. Gift Foundation
vii. Iolani Entrepreneur’s Club
c. Beta Applicant Form Review
i. No updates at this time.
6. New Kuleana Business
a. Need to sure up process for providing loans and then maintain and support the loans.
b. Ask Danny for best practice information on loans and servicing loans. (Ben A.)
c. Mike M. noted that David T. from Hawaii Business Magazine is interested in writing a story about Kuleana when we are ready.
d. John C. is scheduled to speak at the Exchange club in July.
e. Ben A. noted Tom may be a person we should engage to help with branding and logo work.
f. Kim H. noted that we may want to speak to Pia Chock from SBDC. Schedule meeting with Pia and John. (Kim H.)
7. Meeting adjourned at 5:55pm
UPCOMING MEETINGS/KEY EVENTS
• Next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 19th, 4:30pm at Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku Street, Room TBD.
Kuleana minutes— March 21, 2011
Kuleana Project MEETING SUMMARY Micro-Lending/Support Team
Date Time Location
Monday March 21, 2011 4:45pm – 5:30pm Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku St.
Leads Attendees
▪ Fran Gendrano (Absent)
▪ John Cheever ▪ Rona Fukumoto
▪ Jessica Horiuchi (Absent)
▪ Kevin Kawahara (Absent)
▪ Michael Morales
▪ Ben Ancheta (Absent)
▪ Lorene Yap ▪ Yvette Maskrey (Absent)
▪ Kim Horan (Absent)
▪ Char Dote (Absent)
TODAY’S AGENDA
1. Meeting was called to order at 4:45pm
2. Kuleana Discussion.
a. Meryll Lynch and Small Business Development Center
i. Kim H. and John C. had a meeting with Glen Fukushima from Meryll Lynch and Pia from Small Business Development Center. They provide business mentoring resource. We would refer people to them since they are federally funded.
ii. Glen advised that he will want to contribute and Meryl Lynch will match once we become a 501(c)3.
iii. Glen advised that we should go to every bank and solicit them and they will also be on the funding committee.
iv. Go to the chamber of commerce and work
v. Have quick books set up on our website loans information. Timeline to set up. (Kevin K.)
vi. John C. noted that when your 501(c)3 application is pending we could solicit funds, however if we do not get the status then the funds would not be tax deductible.
b. Hawaii Angels
i. Kim Farnsworth noted there is an investor on the Big Island looking to do a community bank project. We could potentially piggy back on this for the micro-loan portion.
ii. Kim also noted that we would need a loan officer. Solicit Danny K. during Bancoh luncheon this week. (John C.)
iii. Economic Development, Enterprise Hono Shin and Economic Development Agency are other groups that worked on micro-loans.
c. John noted that we should continue to form partnerships with other folks who are looking at potentially getting into this type of loan process.
d. Could potentially reach out to Goodwill as a fiscal sponsor. (Rona F.)
e. A conference call has been scheduled on Wednesday at 2pm to review with Kina from IIF and review our application.
f. Rona F. brought up a proposal that would provide a loan to a group that helps provide work training for developmentally challenged folks.
3. By-laws Review
a. None.
4. 501(c)3 Application Review
a. John C. provided amendments to the articles of organization to DCCA per lawyers; however it was noted by DCCA that it is not needed.
b. Application to take at least 2 months for approval. We are targeting end of May to receive approval.
c. If we do not receive approval by the end of May, then we could potentially reach out to Senator Akaka’s office to help push approval. (John C.)
5. Island Innovation Fund Update
a. Application submitted.
b. No other updates.
6. Other Kuleana Business
a. Kuleana Networking/Outreach Listing
i. Goodwill (noted in today’s meeting)
ii. Aloha United Way
iii. UH
iv. PCF Alumni
v. Young Presidents
vi. Gift Foundation
vii. Iolani Entrepreneur’s Club
b. Beta Applicant Form Review
i. No updates at this time.
7. New Kuleana Business
a. Kim H. and John C. are meeting with Norm from Aloha United Way April 1st.
b. Noted that AUW could potentially be unrestricted funds since they are for the funding insurance.
8. Meeting adjourned at 5:30pm
UPCOMING MEETINGS/KEY EVENTS
• Next meeting is scheduled for April 4th, 4:30pm at Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku Street, Room TBD.
Date Time Location
Monday March 21, 2011 4:45pm – 5:30pm Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku St.
Leads Attendees
▪ Fran Gendrano (Absent)
▪ John Cheever ▪ Rona Fukumoto
▪ Jessica Horiuchi (Absent)
▪ Kevin Kawahara (Absent)
▪ Michael Morales
▪ Ben Ancheta (Absent)
▪ Lorene Yap ▪ Yvette Maskrey (Absent)
▪ Kim Horan (Absent)
▪ Char Dote (Absent)
TODAY’S AGENDA
1. Meeting was called to order at 4:45pm
2. Kuleana Discussion.
a. Meryll Lynch and Small Business Development Center
i. Kim H. and John C. had a meeting with Glen Fukushima from Meryll Lynch and Pia from Small Business Development Center. They provide business mentoring resource. We would refer people to them since they are federally funded.
ii. Glen advised that he will want to contribute and Meryl Lynch will match once we become a 501(c)3.
iii. Glen advised that we should go to every bank and solicit them and they will also be on the funding committee.
iv. Go to the chamber of commerce and work
v. Have quick books set up on our website loans information. Timeline to set up. (Kevin K.)
vi. John C. noted that when your 501(c)3 application is pending we could solicit funds, however if we do not get the status then the funds would not be tax deductible.
b. Hawaii Angels
i. Kim Farnsworth noted there is an investor on the Big Island looking to do a community bank project. We could potentially piggy back on this for the micro-loan portion.
ii. Kim also noted that we would need a loan officer. Solicit Danny K. during Bancoh luncheon this week. (John C.)
iii. Economic Development, Enterprise Hono Shin and Economic Development Agency are other groups that worked on micro-loans.
c. John noted that we should continue to form partnerships with other folks who are looking at potentially getting into this type of loan process.
d. Could potentially reach out to Goodwill as a fiscal sponsor. (Rona F.)
e. A conference call has been scheduled on Wednesday at 2pm to review with Kina from IIF and review our application.
f. Rona F. brought up a proposal that would provide a loan to a group that helps provide work training for developmentally challenged folks.
3. By-laws Review
a. None.
4. 501(c)3 Application Review
a. John C. provided amendments to the articles of organization to DCCA per lawyers; however it was noted by DCCA that it is not needed.
b. Application to take at least 2 months for approval. We are targeting end of May to receive approval.
c. If we do not receive approval by the end of May, then we could potentially reach out to Senator Akaka’s office to help push approval. (John C.)
5. Island Innovation Fund Update
a. Application submitted.
b. No other updates.
6. Other Kuleana Business
a. Kuleana Networking/Outreach Listing
i. Goodwill (noted in today’s meeting)
ii. Aloha United Way
iii. UH
iv. PCF Alumni
v. Young Presidents
vi. Gift Foundation
vii. Iolani Entrepreneur’s Club
b. Beta Applicant Form Review
i. No updates at this time.
7. New Kuleana Business
a. Kim H. and John C. are meeting with Norm from Aloha United Way April 1st.
b. Noted that AUW could potentially be unrestricted funds since they are for the funding insurance.
8. Meeting adjourned at 5:30pm
UPCOMING MEETINGS/KEY EVENTS
• Next meeting is scheduled for April 4th, 4:30pm at Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku Street, Room TBD.
Kuleana minutes— Feb. 22, 2011
Kuleana Project MEETING SUMMARY Micro-Lending/Support Team
Date Time Location
Tuesday, February 22, 2011 4:45pm – 6:05pm Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku St.
Leads Attendees
▪ Fran Gendrano
▪ John Cheever ▪ Rona Fukumoto (Out)
▪ Jessica Horiuchi
▪ Kevin Kawahara ▪ Michael Morales
▪ Ben Ancheta (Out)
▪ Lorene Yap ▪ Yvette Maskrey (Out)
▪ Kim Horan
▪ Char Dote
TODAY’S AGENDA
1. Meeting was called to order at 4:45pm
2. Kuleana Discussion.
a. Meeting notes were not submitted on 2/7. Meeting was classified as a working session.
b. John C. welcomed and approved 2 new board members to the group: Kim Horan and Char Dote.
c. Hale Takazawa sent a very positive email regarding the initiative.
d. Paul Brewbaker has not responded to the concept plan information that was submitted by John C.
e. Honolulu Committee Fund forgave $792K in loans. Kuleana is learning from t
f. Good response from Young Presidents and Gift foundation. Request to be submitted to their Boards.
g. Women’s fund application is in progress. (John C.)
i. Need to clarify how the overhead is addressed based on allocation of funds for women? Review application. (John C.)
h. PID is the fiscal sponsor for IIF only. If we get funded from IIF then we need to provide the MOA.
i. Group agrees to keep from keep
j. Provide John with other money sources.
k. Kim H. advised that Aloha United Way may also be looking to accept applications. Follow to confirm. (Kim H.)
l. Revolusun may also be an option. Follow up. (John C)
m. Char D. advised that maybe we should ping the more of the PCF alumni.
3. By-laws Review
a. Upon dissolution of your organization where does the funding/assets go? Must be specified in by-law after reviewed by legal counsel. (Mike M.)
b. Articles of organization test should limit the purposes to one or more of the examples provided. Kuleana falls under example 5. Use charitable purposes and relief of the pure. Add to the by-laws. Obtain information from John C.. (Mike M.)
c. Send John C. updated By-laws. (Mike M.)
4. 501(c)3 Application Review
a. Noted that Jeff Pieper advised that we need to identify which schedule should be submitted and a narrative. Also need to note relief of the board. (John C.)
i. Schedule A – H are not applicable to Kuleana. Need to confirm which schedule we need to fill out. Check with Jeff Pieper and/or Trevor Asam. (John C. and Fran G.)
1. Identify where the majority of the funds?
2. Confirm schedule information. (John C.)
a. Per Jessica H. Kuleana most likely falls under the “other” category, does not appear that we need to fill out a schedule.
3. Upon dissolution of your organization where does the funding/assets go?
b. Review the by-laws and update for verbiage on elected officials. (Mike M.)
c. Noted that we have filed Articles of incorporation with the DCCA.
d. John C. reviewed the 501(C)3 application in detail and answered the questions. The following are some highlights of a few of the notable items during the question review.
i. Articles of organization are not developed. We should draft and include Board terms, number of members. Provide to John C. before next meeting. (Fran G.)
ii. Noted we are a public charity with eventual broad public support.
iii. Describe the fund raising activities to obtain donations/funds: Email, personal, foundation, grant, website, government grant. (
iv. We will accept donations from outside of the Hawaii.
v. Noted that Rona is not a Board Member due to potential conflict of interests with Catholic Charities.
vi. Kevin provided an update for an application for insurance liabilities and the E&O is $1500 and D&O is $7500.
vii. We do not have close connections at this time.
viii. Clarification and need a request for definitive rulings.
ix. Noted that, Gross receipts are the total amounts the organization received from all sources during its annual accounting period, without subtracting any costs or expenses.
5. Island Innovation Fund Update
a. Application submitted.
b. No other updates.
6. Other Kuleana Business
a. Kuleana Networking/Outreach Listing
i. Women’s Fund
ii. Aloha United Way
iii. UH
iv. PCF Alumni
v. Young Presidents
vi. Gift Foundation
vii. Iolani Entrepreneur’s Club
b. Beta Applicant Form Review
i. No updates at this time.
7. New Kuleana Business
a. No Updates at this time.
8. Meeting Updates
a. Meeting notes were not submitted on 2/7. Meeting was classified as a working session.
9. Meeting adjourned at 6:05pm
UPCOMING MEETINGS/KEY EVENTS
• Next meeting is scheduled for March 7th, 4:30pm at Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku Street, Room TBD.
Date Time Location
Tuesday, February 22, 2011 4:45pm – 6:05pm Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku St.
Leads Attendees
▪ Fran Gendrano
▪ John Cheever ▪ Rona Fukumoto (Out)
▪ Jessica Horiuchi
▪ Kevin Kawahara ▪ Michael Morales
▪ Ben Ancheta (Out)
▪ Lorene Yap ▪ Yvette Maskrey (Out)
▪ Kim Horan
▪ Char Dote
TODAY’S AGENDA
1. Meeting was called to order at 4:45pm
2. Kuleana Discussion.
a. Meeting notes were not submitted on 2/7. Meeting was classified as a working session.
b. John C. welcomed and approved 2 new board members to the group: Kim Horan and Char Dote.
c. Hale Takazawa sent a very positive email regarding the initiative.
d. Paul Brewbaker has not responded to the concept plan information that was submitted by John C.
e. Honolulu Committee Fund forgave $792K in loans. Kuleana is learning from t
f. Good response from Young Presidents and Gift foundation. Request to be submitted to their Boards.
g. Women’s fund application is in progress. (John C.)
i. Need to clarify how the overhead is addressed based on allocation of funds for women? Review application. (John C.)
h. PID is the fiscal sponsor for IIF only. If we get funded from IIF then we need to provide the MOA.
i. Group agrees to keep from keep
j. Provide John with other money sources.
k. Kim H. advised that Aloha United Way may also be looking to accept applications. Follow to confirm. (Kim H.)
l. Revolusun may also be an option. Follow up. (John C)
m. Char D. advised that maybe we should ping the more of the PCF alumni.
3. By-laws Review
a. Upon dissolution of your organization where does the funding/assets go? Must be specified in by-law after reviewed by legal counsel. (Mike M.)
b. Articles of organization test should limit the purposes to one or more of the examples provided. Kuleana falls under example 5. Use charitable purposes and relief of the pure. Add to the by-laws. Obtain information from John C.. (Mike M.)
c. Send John C. updated By-laws. (Mike M.)
4. 501(c)3 Application Review
a. Noted that Jeff Pieper advised that we need to identify which schedule should be submitted and a narrative. Also need to note relief of the board. (John C.)
i. Schedule A – H are not applicable to Kuleana. Need to confirm which schedule we need to fill out. Check with Jeff Pieper and/or Trevor Asam. (John C. and Fran G.)
1. Identify where the majority of the funds?
2. Confirm schedule information. (John C.)
a. Per Jessica H. Kuleana most likely falls under the “other” category, does not appear that we need to fill out a schedule.
3. Upon dissolution of your organization where does the funding/assets go?
b. Review the by-laws and update for verbiage on elected officials. (Mike M.)
c. Noted that we have filed Articles of incorporation with the DCCA.
d. John C. reviewed the 501(C)3 application in detail and answered the questions. The following are some highlights of a few of the notable items during the question review.
i. Articles of organization are not developed. We should draft and include Board terms, number of members. Provide to John C. before next meeting. (Fran G.)
ii. Noted we are a public charity with eventual broad public support.
iii. Describe the fund raising activities to obtain donations/funds: Email, personal, foundation, grant, website, government grant. (
iv. We will accept donations from outside of the Hawaii.
v. Noted that Rona is not a Board Member due to potential conflict of interests with Catholic Charities.
vi. Kevin provided an update for an application for insurance liabilities and the E&O is $1500 and D&O is $7500.
vii. We do not have close connections at this time.
viii. Clarification and need a request for definitive rulings.
ix. Noted that, Gross receipts are the total amounts the organization received from all sources during its annual accounting period, without subtracting any costs or expenses.
5. Island Innovation Fund Update
a. Application submitted.
b. No other updates.
6. Other Kuleana Business
a. Kuleana Networking/Outreach Listing
i. Women’s Fund
ii. Aloha United Way
iii. UH
iv. PCF Alumni
v. Young Presidents
vi. Gift Foundation
vii. Iolani Entrepreneur’s Club
b. Beta Applicant Form Review
i. No updates at this time.
7. New Kuleana Business
a. No Updates at this time.
8. Meeting Updates
a. Meeting notes were not submitted on 2/7. Meeting was classified as a working session.
9. Meeting adjourned at 6:05pm
UPCOMING MEETINGS/KEY EVENTS
• Next meeting is scheduled for March 7th, 4:30pm at Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku Street, Room TBD.
Kuleana minutes— Jan. 24, 2011
Kuleana Project MEETING SUMMARY Micro-Lending/Support Team
Date Time Location
Tuesday, January 24, 2011 4:45pm – 6:15pm Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku St.
Leads Attendees
▪ Fran Gendrano (Out)
▪ John Cheever ▪ Rona Fukumoto
▪ Jessica Horiuchi
▪ Kevin Kawahara ▪ Michael Morales
▪ Ben Ancheta
▪ Lorene Yap Yvette Maskrey
TODAY’S AGENDA
1) Meeting was called to order at 4:45pm
2) Agenda
1. By-laws Review
1. People
a. Confirmed appointed Officers as noted in the By-laws:
i. President – John Cheever
ii. Vice President – Fran Gendrano
iii. Secretary – Michael Morales
iv. Treasurer – Ben Ancheta - confirmed with Ben during today’s meeting.
b. Noted by that attendees listed on this document are all Board members.
c. By-laws were updated and agreed upon by the Board.
d. Send out By-laws to Board members. (Mike M.)
e. Post By-laws to Google Share site. (Kevin K.)
2. Innovation Fund Update
1. Selected to provide a full proposal to Island Innovation Fund. Send information out to the Board. (John C.)
a. Post information to Google Share site. (Kevin K.)
2. Arrange a follow up meeting with PID and send out agenda with clear requests/requirements to obtain the following information due to the submission deadline. (John C. and Jessica H.)
a. Description of the organization
b. Audited financial information
3. Actions for Kuleana Team:
a. Budget
i. Create a budget narrative (John C. and Ben A.)
ii. Create a full Project Budget (Kuleana Board Members were identified to begin work) Kevin K. to post on the Google Share site all documentation.
1. Build out the budget. What will it cost us to run the Kuleana for the year. Begin list. (Kevin K.)
a. Once items are listed begin to categorize items as part of the Operating or Capital budget. (Ben A.)
2. Board agreed to review and further document the full micro-lending process to assist in the budget narrative and line item documentation.
iii. John C. agreed to work at Catholic Charities to begin most of the critical work.
iv. Call Bancoh to set up an account for Kuleana. (Rona F.)
v. Review Credit check and line impacts for prospective clients. (Yvette M.)
b. Process/Systems
i. Build out process requirements and processes for the following (Fran Gendrano):
1. Intake Request – PID and Catholic Charities example started:
a. Call in to PID and Catholic Charities
b. All calls should then be directed to John Cheever
2. Decision making process to approve loans
3. Support process of approved loans.
4. Sustainability of this foundation.
3. Other Kuleana Business
a. Kuleana Networking/Outreach Meetings
i. Update from the President’s meeting with the House Rep Jessica Wooley. (John C.)
1. Could potentially set up another meeting with Rep Jessica and others.
2. Jessica H. advised to first focus on metrics before moving forward with other potential partnerships.
3. Contact the student and professor at Shidler for assistance. (John C.)
b. 501(c)3 Update
i. Meeting has been scheduled with Nate Nelson on 1/25. (John C.)
c. Beta Applicant Form Review
a. Check if the applicants are native and after confirmation we may have 1 or 2 people fill out application fill out the form and review to review on 1/24. (Rona F.)
i. Reviewed application form for completeness and accuracy.
ii. Application shows definite value and will be good measurement to baseline other applications.
iii. Request is $7K for 36 months is a $221 per month at 8.5% loan.
iv. Per Lorene Y. repayment period should be shorter and amount of the loan should be smaller.
a. Future – Ben A. noted we could establish a venture capitalist type of process where if a loan applicant hits certain milestones they would be eligible for additional funds.
v. Ben A. noted that the application is a perfect application for the type of loan we are looking to lend out.
4. New Kuleana Business
a. Board agreed to submit grants for other non-profits such as OHA, US Vets, Woman’s Funds after 501(c)3 is approved and in parallel to Island Innovation Funding. (John C.).
3) Meeting Updates
1. Previous meeting’s Minutes were accepted into record.
2. Additional meeting is scheduled for 1/31 at 4:30pm due to the critical timeliness of completing the Island Innovation Fund proposal. Send out meeting request. (Mike M.)
3. Mike M. will be late to the meeting and requests the Treasurer or VP to take notes in his place.
4) Meeting adjourned at 6:15pm
UPCOMING MEETINGS/KEY EVENTS
• Next meeting is scheduled for January 31st, 4:30pm at Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku Street, Room 2.
Date Time Location
Tuesday, January 24, 2011 4:45pm – 6:15pm Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku St.
Leads Attendees
▪ Fran Gendrano (Out)
▪ John Cheever ▪ Rona Fukumoto
▪ Jessica Horiuchi
▪ Kevin Kawahara ▪ Michael Morales
▪ Ben Ancheta
▪ Lorene Yap Yvette Maskrey
TODAY’S AGENDA
1) Meeting was called to order at 4:45pm
2) Agenda
1. By-laws Review
1. People
a. Confirmed appointed Officers as noted in the By-laws:
i. President – John Cheever
ii. Vice President – Fran Gendrano
iii. Secretary – Michael Morales
iv. Treasurer – Ben Ancheta - confirmed with Ben during today’s meeting.
b. Noted by that attendees listed on this document are all Board members.
c. By-laws were updated and agreed upon by the Board.
d. Send out By-laws to Board members. (Mike M.)
e. Post By-laws to Google Share site. (Kevin K.)
2. Innovation Fund Update
1. Selected to provide a full proposal to Island Innovation Fund. Send information out to the Board. (John C.)
a. Post information to Google Share site. (Kevin K.)
2. Arrange a follow up meeting with PID and send out agenda with clear requests/requirements to obtain the following information due to the submission deadline. (John C. and Jessica H.)
a. Description of the organization
b. Audited financial information
3. Actions for Kuleana Team:
a. Budget
i. Create a budget narrative (John C. and Ben A.)
ii. Create a full Project Budget (Kuleana Board Members were identified to begin work) Kevin K. to post on the Google Share site all documentation.
1. Build out the budget. What will it cost us to run the Kuleana for the year. Begin list. (Kevin K.)
a. Once items are listed begin to categorize items as part of the Operating or Capital budget. (Ben A.)
2. Board agreed to review and further document the full micro-lending process to assist in the budget narrative and line item documentation.
iii. John C. agreed to work at Catholic Charities to begin most of the critical work.
iv. Call Bancoh to set up an account for Kuleana. (Rona F.)
v. Review Credit check and line impacts for prospective clients. (Yvette M.)
b. Process/Systems
i. Build out process requirements and processes for the following (Fran Gendrano):
1. Intake Request – PID and Catholic Charities example started:
a. Call in to PID and Catholic Charities
b. All calls should then be directed to John Cheever
2. Decision making process to approve loans
3. Support process of approved loans.
4. Sustainability of this foundation.
3. Other Kuleana Business
a. Kuleana Networking/Outreach Meetings
i. Update from the President’s meeting with the House Rep Jessica Wooley. (John C.)
1. Could potentially set up another meeting with Rep Jessica and others.
2. Jessica H. advised to first focus on metrics before moving forward with other potential partnerships.
3. Contact the student and professor at Shidler for assistance. (John C.)
b. 501(c)3 Update
i. Meeting has been scheduled with Nate Nelson on 1/25. (John C.)
c. Beta Applicant Form Review
a. Check if the applicants are native and after confirmation we may have 1 or 2 people fill out application fill out the form and review to review on 1/24. (Rona F.)
i. Reviewed application form for completeness and accuracy.
ii. Application shows definite value and will be good measurement to baseline other applications.
iii. Request is $7K for 36 months is a $221 per month at 8.5% loan.
iv. Per Lorene Y. repayment period should be shorter and amount of the loan should be smaller.
a. Future – Ben A. noted we could establish a venture capitalist type of process where if a loan applicant hits certain milestones they would be eligible for additional funds.
v. Ben A. noted that the application is a perfect application for the type of loan we are looking to lend out.
4. New Kuleana Business
a. Board agreed to submit grants for other non-profits such as OHA, US Vets, Woman’s Funds after 501(c)3 is approved and in parallel to Island Innovation Funding. (John C.).
3) Meeting Updates
1. Previous meeting’s Minutes were accepted into record.
2. Additional meeting is scheduled for 1/31 at 4:30pm due to the critical timeliness of completing the Island Innovation Fund proposal. Send out meeting request. (Mike M.)
3. Mike M. will be late to the meeting and requests the Treasurer or VP to take notes in his place.
4) Meeting adjourned at 6:15pm
UPCOMING MEETINGS/KEY EVENTS
• Next meeting is scheduled for January 31st, 4:30pm at Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku Street, Room 2.
Kuleana minutes— Jan. 11, 2011
Kuleana Project MEETING SUMMARY Micro-Lending/Support Team
Date Time Location
Tuesday, November 29, 2010 4:15pm – 6:15pm Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku St.
Leads Attendees
▪ Fran Gendrano
▪ John Cheever ▪ Rona Fukumoto
▪ Jessica Horiuchi
▪ Kevin Kawahara ▪ Michael Morales
▪ Ben Ancheta
▪ Lorene Yap
TODAY’S AGENDA
1) Key Decisions/Updates
1. PID meeting. Jessica H. and John C. met with Allison and agreed to be our Fiscal Sponsor for the Hawaii Innovation Fund application. John C. provided a copy of the fund concept application to PID for review.
2. Assumptions – we are currently not asking for any resource support from P.I.D..
2) HCF Application review
1. Review and confirm HCF fiscal sponsor requirements. (Jessica H.)
2. Validate if P.I.D. has a processing fee for providing fiscal sponsorship. (Jessica H.)
3. Verbal agreement is in place and a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is contingent upon HCF approval process.
4. Per Kevin K. a 501c3 is not required for HCF submission.
5. Reviewed and updated HCF application. Provide the updated document to the group. (John C.)
6. Lorene spoke with Grameen America in NY. They advised that their initial concept request is 1 sheet and no business plan. Loan review is also only 1 sheet. There are groups of 5 that meet once a week and vet proposal requests. If approved the entire group has to sign off.
3) Next Steps
1. Submit HCF application. (John H.)
4) Action Items
1. Provide loan application template for review next meeting. (Fran G.)
2. Distribute to the team a preliminary project schedule/task list after P.I.D. update. (Mike M.)
3. Review and confirm HCF fiscal sponsor requirements. (Jessica H.)
4. Validate if P.I.D. has a processing fee for providing fiscal sponsorship. (Jessica H.)
5. Reviewed and updated HCF application. Provide the updated document to the group. (John C.)
UPCOMING MEETINGS/KEY EVENTS
• Next meeting is scheduled for December 13th, 4:30pm at Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku Street.
Date Time Location
Tuesday, November 29, 2010 4:15pm – 6:15pm Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku St.
Leads Attendees
▪ Fran Gendrano
▪ John Cheever ▪ Rona Fukumoto
▪ Jessica Horiuchi
▪ Kevin Kawahara ▪ Michael Morales
▪ Ben Ancheta
▪ Lorene Yap
TODAY’S AGENDA
1) Key Decisions/Updates
1. PID meeting. Jessica H. and John C. met with Allison and agreed to be our Fiscal Sponsor for the Hawaii Innovation Fund application. John C. provided a copy of the fund concept application to PID for review.
2. Assumptions – we are currently not asking for any resource support from P.I.D..
2) HCF Application review
1. Review and confirm HCF fiscal sponsor requirements. (Jessica H.)
2. Validate if P.I.D. has a processing fee for providing fiscal sponsorship. (Jessica H.)
3. Verbal agreement is in place and a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is contingent upon HCF approval process.
4. Per Kevin K. a 501c3 is not required for HCF submission.
5. Reviewed and updated HCF application. Provide the updated document to the group. (John C.)
6. Lorene spoke with Grameen America in NY. They advised that their initial concept request is 1 sheet and no business plan. Loan review is also only 1 sheet. There are groups of 5 that meet once a week and vet proposal requests. If approved the entire group has to sign off.
3) Next Steps
1. Submit HCF application. (John H.)
4) Action Items
1. Provide loan application template for review next meeting. (Fran G.)
2. Distribute to the team a preliminary project schedule/task list after P.I.D. update. (Mike M.)
3. Review and confirm HCF fiscal sponsor requirements. (Jessica H.)
4. Validate if P.I.D. has a processing fee for providing fiscal sponsorship. (Jessica H.)
5. Reviewed and updated HCF application. Provide the updated document to the group. (John C.)
UPCOMING MEETINGS/KEY EVENTS
• Next meeting is scheduled for December 13th, 4:30pm at Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku Street.
Kuleana minutes— Nov. 29, 2010
Kuleana Project MEETING SUMMARY Micro-Lending/Support Team
Date Time Location
Tuesday, November 29, 2010 4:15pm – 6:15pm Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku St.
Leads Attendees
▪ Fran Gendrano
▪ John Cheever ▪ Rona Fukumoto
▪ Jessica Horiuchi
▪ Kevin Kawahara ▪ Michael Morales
▪ Ben Ancheta
▪ Lorene Yap
TODAY’S AGENDA
1) Key Decisions/Updates
1. PID meeting. Jessica H. and John C. met with Allison and agreed to be our Fiscal Sponsor for the Hawaii Innovation Fund application. John C. provided a copy of the fund concept application to PID for review.
2. Assumptions – we are currently not asking for any resource support from P.I.D..
2) HCF Application review
1. Review and confirm HCF fiscal sponsor requirements. (Jessica H.)
2. Validate if P.I.D. has a processing fee for providing fiscal sponsorship. (Jessica H.)
3. Verbal agreement is in place and a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is contingent upon HCF approval process.
4. Per Kevin K. a 501c3 is not required for HCF submission.
5. Reviewed and updated HCF application. Provide the updated document to the group. (John C.)
6. Lorene spoke with Grameen America in NY. They advised that their initial concept request is 1 sheet and no business plan. Loan review is also only 1 sheet. There are groups of 5 that meet once a week and vet proposal requests. If approved the entire group has to sign off.
3) Next Steps
1. Submit HCF application. (John H.)
4) Action Items
1. Provide loan application template for review next meeting. (Fran G.)
2. Distribute to the team a preliminary project schedule/task list after P.I.D. update. (Mike M.)
3. Review and confirm HCF fiscal sponsor requirements. (Jessica H.)
4. Validate if P.I.D. has a processing fee for providing fiscal sponsorship. (Jessica H.)
5. Reviewed and updated HCF application. Provide the updated document to the group. (John C.)
UPCOMING MEETINGS/KEY EVENTS
• Next meeting is scheduled for December 13th, 4:30pm at Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku Street.
Date Time Location
Tuesday, November 29, 2010 4:15pm – 6:15pm Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku St.
Leads Attendees
▪ Fran Gendrano
▪ John Cheever ▪ Rona Fukumoto
▪ Jessica Horiuchi
▪ Kevin Kawahara ▪ Michael Morales
▪ Ben Ancheta
▪ Lorene Yap
TODAY’S AGENDA
1) Key Decisions/Updates
1. PID meeting. Jessica H. and John C. met with Allison and agreed to be our Fiscal Sponsor for the Hawaii Innovation Fund application. John C. provided a copy of the fund concept application to PID for review.
2. Assumptions – we are currently not asking for any resource support from P.I.D..
2) HCF Application review
1. Review and confirm HCF fiscal sponsor requirements. (Jessica H.)
2. Validate if P.I.D. has a processing fee for providing fiscal sponsorship. (Jessica H.)
3. Verbal agreement is in place and a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is contingent upon HCF approval process.
4. Per Kevin K. a 501c3 is not required for HCF submission.
5. Reviewed and updated HCF application. Provide the updated document to the group. (John C.)
6. Lorene spoke with Grameen America in NY. They advised that their initial concept request is 1 sheet and no business plan. Loan review is also only 1 sheet. There are groups of 5 that meet once a week and vet proposal requests. If approved the entire group has to sign off.
3) Next Steps
1. Submit HCF application. (John H.)
4) Action Items
1. Provide loan application template for review next meeting. (Fran G.)
2. Distribute to the team a preliminary project schedule/task list after P.I.D. update. (Mike M.)
3. Review and confirm HCF fiscal sponsor requirements. (Jessica H.)
4. Validate if P.I.D. has a processing fee for providing fiscal sponsorship. (Jessica H.)
5. Reviewed and updated HCF application. Provide the updated document to the group. (John C.)
UPCOMING MEETINGS/KEY EVENTS
• Next meeting is scheduled for December 13th, 4:30pm at Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku Street.
Kuleana minutes— Nov. 16, 2010
Kuleana Project MEETING SUMMARY Micro-Lending/Support Team
Date Time Location
Tuesday, November 16, 2010 4:00pm – 5:30pm Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku St.
Leads Attendees
▪ Fran Gendrano
▪ John Cheever ▪ Rona Fukumoto
▪ Jessica Horiuchi
▪ Kevin Kawahara ▪ Michael Morales
▪ Ben Ancheta
▪ Lorene Yap
TODAY’S AGENDA
1) Key Decisions/Updates
1. Jessica and Cheever provided a summary of the recent meeting with Partners in Development.
2. Jessica noted it will take 6 to 9 months to obtain 501c3 status.
3. Kuleana Concept
o Fran presented the Kuleana Concept. See the attached PDF.
o Noted that in order to be a 501c3, donors will not be able to cash out.
o Ben noted that we should charge interest to provide a clear real life understanding of the valuation of repayment.
o Kevin noted that we should review the loan template next meeting.
o Rona stated that we could approach Catholic Charities as a potential fiscal sponsor.
4. SWOT analysis – PID
o Strengths
• Existing infrastructure
• Fiscal means for pilot program
• Operational Infrastructure
• Credibility & Legitimacy
• Access to potential borrower
• Scalability
• Wealth of knowledge to manage and grow
• Network
o Weakness
• Potential culture conflicts
• Less opportunity for individual
• Brand tied to PID
o Opportunities
• Allowed to focus on mission of lending
• Fill gaps in PID organization
• Connect PID w/ other organizations?
• PID - risk taker
• Large Federal Grants
o Threats
• Live in PID culture
• No individual identity
• PID has a polarizing effect
• May not be amenable to future spin-out of Kuleana
• Potential Limits on client selection
• Internal competition for grants
5. SWOT analysis – Kuleana
o Strengths
• Control & Autonomy
• Personal connections
• Potential funding sources
o Weakness
• Need to build infrastructure
• 18 - 24 Month timeframe
• Less likely to get funding
o Opportunities
• Personal & professional growth
o Threats
• Higher risk of failure
• SWOT conclusion
a) The team agreed that Kuleana is the favorable approach, however if PID may be a viable alternative if it can provide support and allow this team to have the necessary latitude to make its own choices.
2) Action Items
1. Plan A - Follow up conversation with PID and communicate our position. Report back to the team. (J. Horiuchi, J. Cheever)
2. Plan B - pursue Catholic Charities as a fiscal sponsor. (R. Fukumoto)
3. Plan C - pursue Pacific Gateway as a fiscal sponsor. (F. Gendrano)
4. Update Business case proposal and incorporate concept. (J. Cheever)
5. Find other fiscal sponsors. (Team)
6. Provide loan application template for review next meeting. (F. Gendrano)
7. Distribute to the team a preliminary project schedule/task list after Plan A response. (M. Morales)
UPCOMING MEETINGS/KEY EVENTS
• Next meeting is scheduled for November 29th, 4:30pm at Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku Street.
Date Time Location
Tuesday, November 16, 2010 4:00pm – 5:30pm Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku St.
Leads Attendees
▪ Fran Gendrano
▪ John Cheever ▪ Rona Fukumoto
▪ Jessica Horiuchi
▪ Kevin Kawahara ▪ Michael Morales
▪ Ben Ancheta
▪ Lorene Yap
TODAY’S AGENDA
1) Key Decisions/Updates
1. Jessica and Cheever provided a summary of the recent meeting with Partners in Development.
2. Jessica noted it will take 6 to 9 months to obtain 501c3 status.
3. Kuleana Concept
o Fran presented the Kuleana Concept. See the attached PDF.
o Noted that in order to be a 501c3, donors will not be able to cash out.
o Ben noted that we should charge interest to provide a clear real life understanding of the valuation of repayment.
o Kevin noted that we should review the loan template next meeting.
o Rona stated that we could approach Catholic Charities as a potential fiscal sponsor.
4. SWOT analysis – PID
o Strengths
• Existing infrastructure
• Fiscal means for pilot program
• Operational Infrastructure
• Credibility & Legitimacy
• Access to potential borrower
• Scalability
• Wealth of knowledge to manage and grow
• Network
o Weakness
• Potential culture conflicts
• Less opportunity for individual
• Brand tied to PID
o Opportunities
• Allowed to focus on mission of lending
• Fill gaps in PID organization
• Connect PID w/ other organizations?
• PID - risk taker
• Large Federal Grants
o Threats
• Live in PID culture
• No individual identity
• PID has a polarizing effect
• May not be amenable to future spin-out of Kuleana
• Potential Limits on client selection
• Internal competition for grants
5. SWOT analysis – Kuleana
o Strengths
• Control & Autonomy
• Personal connections
• Potential funding sources
o Weakness
• Need to build infrastructure
• 18 - 24 Month timeframe
• Less likely to get funding
o Opportunities
• Personal & professional growth
o Threats
• Higher risk of failure
• SWOT conclusion
a) The team agreed that Kuleana is the favorable approach, however if PID may be a viable alternative if it can provide support and allow this team to have the necessary latitude to make its own choices.
2) Action Items
1. Plan A - Follow up conversation with PID and communicate our position. Report back to the team. (J. Horiuchi, J. Cheever)
2. Plan B - pursue Catholic Charities as a fiscal sponsor. (R. Fukumoto)
3. Plan C - pursue Pacific Gateway as a fiscal sponsor. (F. Gendrano)
4. Update Business case proposal and incorporate concept. (J. Cheever)
5. Find other fiscal sponsors. (Team)
6. Provide loan application template for review next meeting. (F. Gendrano)
7. Distribute to the team a preliminary project schedule/task list after Plan A response. (M. Morales)
UPCOMING MEETINGS/KEY EVENTS
• Next meeting is scheduled for November 29th, 4:30pm at Catholic Charities, 1822 Keeamoku Street.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)