From:                                         Kathy Clark <kathy@shearmadness72.com>

Sent:                                           Saturday, September 12, 2015 8:40 AM

To:                                               McClenon, Chuck

Cc:                                               Carol McClenon; Lee Mcclenon; Bob McClenon; Ann Haglund

Subject:                                     Re: McClenon Fund - Long-term Purpose

 

Chuck:

 

Thanks for your response. I want to share a story which, at least to me, has relevance here. 

 

Some years after starting my software company in Northern Virginia, I was invited to join a small group of successful local businessmen, all of whom were very wealthy. I was the first woman member, probably 30 years younger than the average age, and with less than 10% of the net worth of even the poorest member. They had chosen me to be the first woman because they wanted to diversify their group and I had demonstrated some leadership in non-profit and community organizations. I learned a lot from these “good old boys”. 

 

They were from many different business backgrounds – lawyers, real estate developers, entrepreneurs. There were the most liberal of Democrats and the most conservative of Republicans and everything in between. But what they had in common transcended the differences – they had a real interest in creating a vibrant, successful Northern Virginia, and they had a strong commitment to the local community and to philanthropy. This group helped me transition from being a company CEO to being a business leader in the community. I learned to understand the importance of local politics, fundraising for important causes (I chaired several gala events, including the American Heart Association) and how to leverage business success into power to affect positive change. 

 

Like the McClenon Fund, this group has struggled with passing its mission down to the “next generation”. With most of the original members now in their 80’s and 90’s, it has been up to my generation to continue the mission and the group is finally on track to do that. And like this group, the McClenon family has a great deal of diversity of thinking as Chuck points out. I have always thought there is far more to be learned from associating with people with different points of view than with those who are in agreement with everything I might think.

 

My interest in keeping the Fund alive is well expressed by both Chuck and Lee – that is, teaching our family about the importance of philanthropy and giving back, while also providing a mechanism for family to stay connected. I am less concerned about the specific causes we choose to support. 

 

Kathy

 

 

 

 

 

From: Chuck McClenon <mcclenon@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 6:04 PM
To: kathy clark <kathy@shearmadness72.com>
Cc: Mary Carol McClenon <rgscarol@hotmail.com>, Lee McClenon <lmcclenon@gmail.com>, Bob McClenon <robert.mcclenon@verizon.net>, Ann Haglund <nicolaides.marketing@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: McClenon Fund - Long-term Purpose

 

IN response to "Why should we bother to keep this Fund alive? Why not just give away all the money we have and shut it down?” I reply, “freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lost.”  Or, as Carol and I traded notes recently on an unrelated matter.  Chuck:  "It leaves me with the peculiar problem of not having any pressing tasks to procrastinate.”  Carol:   "No problem, I can lend you some of mine.”  This is very much a question of what is worthy of concern and involvement.  If, in this contentious environment, there is nothing that we collectively can effectively influence, then we should walk away from this, and focus our thoughts on other worries.  So, is there some bond and some understanding among ourselves which is worthy of our attention and distraction from all those other concerns?  

 

But against that cynicism, I appeal first to family.  The Fund held together for the past decade and some because some cousins felt special connections to other cousins, and to Paul.  We have not always kept in close touch with our cousins, but over the years we have found and nurtured new connections to each other.  Our parents were all remarkable people, with remarkable life-stories, often defying convention.  As of course were our grandparents.  In this generation, we have followed diverse paths, and made impacts in many different ways.  And I think we have come to value and the breadth of these accomplishments.  

 

And I’ll underscore this by way of comparison.  The Cramer family, the descendants of my wife’s grandparents, are very close-knit.  They have a family reunion every year, with a large group of the aunts, the cousins, our children's generation, and now the babies.  This year there were 37 people there.  It is an outpouring of Evangelical love.  The values which bind them together are obvious.  Their life paths are similar.  Many of them pursue career paths in medicine and nursing, teaching, ministry and engineering, and marry others in those paths.  It is easy to cheer each other on, when we understand each other seemingly so well.  

 

But among us McClenons, consider the paths of Dave, Tom, and Carol, and Kathy, so very different, and should I be ashamed that the most daring thing I did with my life was to teach a year in China?  We recognize and quietly celebrate the diversity of our talents achievements, and differences in viewpoint.   That ability to appreciate and celebrate is a remarkable thing, and it’s a gift which we have to give (and I argue “hafta give”) to our children, nieces and nephews.  And so before I get into, “so what does the Fund advocate for?”, it advocates for Making a Difference, and Individuals recognizing and speaking out for where we can Make a Difference.  

 

As I thought about how I would write this, my second part was going to be some consideration of the original stated purpose of the Fund, and the kinds of causes it would support, and how they still exist today, though in different forms.  In other words, to celebrate the wisdom of the founders.  But I am reminded that when Paul visited his mother for the last time, her words were something like “if you’ve come to the old lady to ask for words of wisdom, you’ve come to the wrong place.”  Walter’s goal, when he handed the project off to his teenage son, was to promote the search for new wisdom.  The role of the elders is only to advise and guide, and celebrate.

 

chuck

 

 

 

On Sep 1, 2015, at 11:54 PM, Kathy Clark <kathy@shearmadness72.com> wrote:

 

Hi Team:

 

First, please use the email address I have sent this from (kathy@shearmadness72.com) for McClenon Fund emails – it is my primary email address. 

 

Next, thank you for agreeing to be part of the task force to determine the long term purpose of the McClenon Fund. There were some emails back in June about this topic which I think make a good starting point for our discussion. I have copied some excerpts from that discussion below, with much discussion about details of choosing organizations deleted for now. 

 

Perhaps we can start by trying to answer the following questions which were a part of that discussion, but for which we did not arrive at a consensus:

 

Why should we bother to keep this Fund alive? Why not just give away all the money we have and shut it down?

 

Could each of you share your answer to these? 

 

Kathy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Bob McClenon <robert.mcclenon@verizon.net>
Date: Saturday, June 13, 2015 at 10:02 AM

 

F.         Kathy wrote:

 

 Here are a few of my personal thoughts about the Fund:

 

  1. First and foremost, I am interested in keeping the Fund active, alive, and vibrant, with interest and participation from descendants of WHM and others. 
  2. We should consider what WHM intended when he created the Fund, but we should be willing to review and revise to reflect changes over time and to continue to keep the Fund relevant for the younger generations. That is, we should not be so concerned with the specific DETAIL of what WHM directed for the Fund, but rather the INTENT.
  3. I think we need to begin by agreeing to an overall guiding principle that defines why the Fund exists – and why we want to continue it. My view is something like this “The WHMF is intended to bring together members and friends of the McClenon family in order to discuss and support causes which are important to its members and which adhere to the spirit of the original by-laws, to provide a forum for younger members of the family to experience philanthropy and to learn leadership skills, and to instill an ongoing family culture of social responsibility”. Well, those may not be the right words, but if we start with that level of discussion, we can then flow down to how we choose causes, how we evaluate organizations, and other details. 

I think that however Clara decides we should continue this discussion online is great and we should perhaps set a goal to have an agreement on some of the basics by the next quarterly meeting. 

 

 

 

H.        Bob writes:

 

On the one hand, I prefer the current system where individual organizations are evaluated, and where there is no overall plan as to how to give away the income.  I think that it has a “quirky charm”, allowing individual Trustees to be eccentric.  I know that some Trustees disagree with me.

 

 

I am puzzled by Kathy’s comments 2 and 3.  I don’t understand about keeping the Fund relevant for the younger generations.  The detailed rules in Article Six worked for three generations (including one to which Kathy also belongs); I am not sure what her concern is.  I think that Article Three, as detailed in Article Six, is the purpose.  I am willing to discuss other language in the direction of Kathy’s comments 2 and 3.

 

 

Bob:

 

Thanks for your excellent points. I do agree with your point about the “quirky charm” of the current system; however, I wonder if that provides enough of an incentive to keep the fund growing and to attract new leadership over the next 100 years. 

 

The question that is not answered by the By-Laws or Articles of Incorporation is this: Why should we bother to keep this Fund alive? Why not just give away all the money we have and shut it down? That’s what I am trying to get at – a consensus as to why WE, the trustees, think it is worth continuing the Fund. It’s more of a Vision statement than the details of what kind of organizations we should support and I think it’s important that we get some agreement. That allows us to move forward with developing strategies not only for what causes we want to support but also for deciding if we should at some point try to attract more funds for the endowment, through contributions, bequests in wills, etc. 

 

Honestly Bob, I think the Fund ONLY exists today because of you. Were it not for your leadership and perseverance over the past – 30? Years – the Fund would have died a long time ago. I believe we need to make it attractive to future generations – they must see some benefit to participating as leaders and financial contributors because I doubt any of them will do if for very long out of a sense of duty. 

 

I do believe we can find some balance between having a well-articulated strategic vision, and still allowing for a little eccentricity. 

 

Kathy