SSFS Closing

[Anonymous]

Those old pledges have probably been written off as uncollectible or bad debt by now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In bankruptcy it's possible these pledges could be enforced.

Um, no it’s not. No judge is going to rule that a would-be donor has to throw money into an abyss to satisfy a creditor unrelated to the intent of their would-be contribution. That is simply absurd.

I think it depends on the wording of the pledge. But yes, satisfying creditors by collecting on valid debts is part of bankruptcy. If the pledge was for funds to do a certain thing, and the school did that thing, how is it fair for the pledge to just never pay?

I’ve never seen a pledge that is anything close to a legally binding document. That said, it’s unlikely that past pledges were unpaid and even less likely that any future pledge would be called.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My child’s experience and therefore our family’s feelings about the school changed so drastically during the Rodney years that it would have been really hard to keep paying. ( I would have, I’m just not surprised that some people didn’t.)

Integrity is if you say you’re going to give, then you give. There were pledges that hadn’t been paid since before the pandemic.

[Anonymous]

This is from August message from BOT:

It is important to share with you that SSFS is facing some financial challenges, and the board is working on several strategic questions related to:
the declining boarding program;
unfulfilled pledges to our last Capital Campaign (Light the Way, meant to support the Upper School Building); and,
significant repair and maintenance needed in our Performing Arts and Athletic Centers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is from August message from BOT:

It is important to share with you that SSFS is facing some financial challenges, and the board is working on several strategic questions related to:
the declining boarding program;
unfulfilled pledges to our last Capital Campaign (Light the Way, meant to support the Upper School Building); and,
significant repair and maintenance needed in our Performing Arts and Athletic Centers.

I’m not aware (outside of this board) of the acrimony with the former HoS, but I suspect that someone would be well within their rights to not fulfill a pledge if they felt like the mission/direction/leadership of the school deviated from when the pledge was made. It may be (and is) sh*tty, but it happens all the time with universities, schools and other not for profits.

Institutions are typically hot to trot for pledges because they can publicize it and the fundraisers often get credit at the time of the pledge. From my experience, it’s often presented as “the pledge is good for the institution but it doesn’t really bind you to anything, so we’d appreciate it if you would agree. And if something comes up, no obligation.”

I wouldn’t make a pledge that I didn’t intend to fulfill, but I’ve seen the “bindingness” to be grossly undersold to try to get the signature.

[Anonymous]

SSFS was an exceptional school for my daughters. They attended PK - 12th. They learned solid academics, but also how to think for themselves, problem-solve, dive deeply into topics, ignite and follow their curiosity, love nature & the planet, love & care about living beings, consider other perspectives, develop a generous world-view, be kind & respectful. They moved on very prepared for the demands of college. It was a warm and friendly community that inspired people to thrive and be their best selves, plus express themselves creatively. We are heart-broken and also puzzled about how this was allowed to happen. I read the BOD letter with all the points and something just doesn't sit right. Really? There was no other solution? .....at least to let the upper school have one more year; juniors graduate and sophomores and freshman have more time to find a different home. This action does not feel like the SSFS that I knew. What is really going on? I don't trust that the BOD letter tells the full story How did such a wonderful place of learning just slip away?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Catholic independent schools can’t be compared to parish schools. They’re not all thriving, either. Some have huge endowments left from the days when their religious orders were still there, but others are hanging on by a thread.

For every Visi or Gonzaga, there’s a Woods Academy that could easily be the next SSFS.

I didn't realize that Woods was in a precarious spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholic independent schools can’t be compared to parish schools. They’re not all thriving, either. Some have huge endowments left from the days when their religious orders were still there, but others are hanging on by a thread.

For every Visi or Gonzaga, there’s a Woods Academy that could easily be the next SSFS.

Or a Good Counsel or SJCHS which are thriving. No religious orders left them huge endowments.

100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholic independent schools can’t be compared to parish schools. They’re not all thriving, either. Some have huge endowments left from the days when their religious orders were still there, but others are hanging on by a thread.

For every Visi or Gonzaga, there’s a Woods Academy that could easily be the next SSFS.

Or a Good Counsel or SJCHS which are thriving. No religious orders left them huge endowments.

To be clear, the endowments typically weren’t from the orders but reflect the relationship students and families had with them. They’re from wealthy people annd even small donors at a time when donating whatever money you had to your parish or school was very much expected. A lot of these big endowments grew from 1-2 rich families who felt a connection to the sisters, or situations like a single woman graduate never marrying and giving her entire net worth to her alma mater after her death. $10k here or there in 1920 or 1940 is a robust endowed fund today.

Ok nice history lessen but irrelevant to these schools. Are you even in the DMV?

It's lesson

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A school could sue the donors who left the school and didn’t pay the full amount they pledged but that’s not the norm - has bad donor relation optics.

I’ve worked with diffrent schools, pledges not always coming thru is common.

Bigger question - why did the school continue the project if they didn’t have the funds? I think all of us would be okay with the accounting message “sorry we don’t have the money to build a new US” instead of the “sorry, but we’re closing the school”

The people are who make the school. Not the empty buildings. We would have been happy in hartshorn and Moore hall. And now those fancy buildings will do who whet good?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is from August message from BOT:

It is important to share with you that SSFS is facing some financial challenges, and the board is working on several strategic questions related to:
the declining boarding program;
unfulfilled pledges to our last Capital Campaign (Light the Way, meant to support the Upper School Building); and,
significant repair and maintenance needed in our Performing Arts and Athletic Centers.

I’m not aware (outside of this board) of the acrimony with the former HoS, but I suspect that someone would be well within their rights to not fulfill a pledge if they felt like the mission/direction/leadership of the school deviated from when the pledge was made. It may be (and is) sh*tty, but it happens all the time with universities, schools and other not for profits.

Institutions are typically hot to trot for pledges because they can publicize it and the fundraisers often get credit at the time of the pledge. From my experience, it’s often presented as “the pledge is good for the institution but it doesn’t really bind you to anything, so we’d appreciate it if you would agree. And if something comes up, no obligation.”

I wouldn’t make a pledge that I didn’t intend to fulfill, but I’ve seen the “bindingness” to be grossly undersold to try to get the signature.

These pledges were lapsed under Tom Gibian whose campaign it was and was supposed to be done before change of heads. They were already behind when the HOS changed. The lapses were discovered under RG, not created under RG.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is from August message from BOT:

It is important to share with you that SSFS is facing some financial challenges, and the board is working on several strategic questions related to:
the declining boarding program;
unfulfilled pledges to our last Capital Campaign (Light the Way, meant to support the Upper School Building); and,
significant repair and maintenance needed in our Performing Arts and Athletic Centers.

I’m not aware (outside of this board) of the acrimony with the former HoS, but I suspect that someone would be well within their rights to not fulfill a pledge if they felt like the mission/direction/leadership of the school deviated from when the pledge was made. It may be (and is) sh*tty, but it happens all the time with universities, schools and other not for profits.

Institutions are typically hot to trot for pledges because they can publicize it and the fundraisers often get credit at the time of the pledge. From my experience, it’s often presented as “the pledge is good for the institution but it doesn’t really bind you to anything, so we’d appreciate it if you would agree. And if something comes up, no obligation.”

I wouldn’t make a pledge that I didn’t intend to fulfill, but I’ve seen the “bindingness” to be grossly undersold to try to get the signature.

These pledges were lapsed under Tom Gibian whose campaign it was and was supposed to be done before change of heads. They were already behind when the HOS changed. The lapses were discovered under RG, not created under RG.

Many were a pledge of X per year for 5 years or whatever made the year before the change in HOS. Not that that’s an excuse for not honoring a commitment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholic independent schools can’t be compared to parish schools. They’re not all thriving, either. Some have huge endowments left from the days when their religious orders were still there, but others are hanging on by a thread.

For every Visi or Gonzaga, there’s a Woods Academy that could easily be the next SSFS.

I didn't realize that Woods was in a precarious spot.

I didnt either. They just finished a capital campaign recently that I thought was successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A school could sue the donors who left the school and didn’t pay the full amount they pledged but that’s not the norm - has bad donor relation optics.

I think the impact of possible donor relation optics are no longer an issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In bankruptcy it's possible these pledges could be enforced.

Um, no it’s not. No judge is going to rule that a would-be donor has to throw money into an abyss to satisfy a creditor unrelated to the intent of their would-be contribution. That is simply absurd.

+1