Attendees

 

 

Meeting Notes  (15 June 2008)

 

Action items highlighted in RED with Responsible members in ( )

 

1.       Objective of today’s meeting

 

MaT opened the meeting stating the objective of today’s meeting is to talk through the Draft paper together as a group and then to break up into the sub committees for further discussions in the respective areas.

 

2.       Motivation for doing this project

 

It is unclear who needs this project the most, whether it is the Jhe Khenpo, the senior monks who need a place for practice or the elderly monks who have no place to go.

 

MaT said that Khentyse Norbu Rinpoche (in Bhutan) indicated this is not really needed.

 

MaT pointed out the three reasons why the elderly monks need this place

 

                     i.      Some elderly monks over aged 62 yrs may not have a place to go to. The situation is that the govt. provides a stipend to each monk in the monastery up to the age of 62 yrs. After that age, the monastery has to support the monks. Some monasteries do not have the financial means to do so and some elderly monks then have to leave the monastery to eke out a living in their old age.

                    ii.      The monasteries are physically challenging for elderly monks, such as steep steps, grueling daily routine, cold weather, cramp quarters.

                  iii.       Some senior monks may need a place to continue serious practice.

 

MaT said that it was important that this work group understands the situation and is motivated to do this project for the right reasons. MaT said that at a certain level, she has trust in the Jhe Khenpo in wanting to do this project.

 

3.       Building a prototype for the future

 

·         Mat described the scope of the project as given in the Draft Paper, Annex A Design Specifications. Briefly, it entails

-          50 to 60 bedder units

-          Located in Punakha where the climate and weather is fine for older monks all year round Physical location: 45 min dirt road up to the top of the mountain, 20 min from level 2 health station; no water, electricity.

 

·         The focus right now is to construct the facility. Training and aid for elderly care can come later.

·         The Government has pledged the building of infrastructure to the site but we need to push for this commitment to be made to facilitate the construction work. (Monk Body Liaison Members).

·         SW will talk to Jeff Lee of HPL, who was involved with the construction of Uma Paro to get a better understanding of the issues and problems faced in Bhutan. (SW)

·         MaT suggested that SW involved other members of the Team in the meeting with Jeff  

 

4.       Facility design

 

For details of Facility Design, refer to MaT’s Draft Paper, Annex A Design Specifications, paragraph under Space Requirements

 

5.       Needs Questionnaire

               

·         Need to have a better understanding of what the elderly monks require for their daily living.

·         Consideration needs to cater to (1) senior monks and their attendants whose accommodation needs also have to be considered (2) accommodation for visiting senior monks and their attendants (3) specifications for dharma practice such as direction of dharma halls.

·         MaT to work with KC to come up with a needs questionnaire so that we can speak with other sangha members who can help us this. (KC, MaT on questionnaire; Inputs from Others)

·         These sangha members should be 40 years old or older so that we can have an understanding or appreciation of what elderly monks require.

 

6.       Need for a local surveyor/architect

 

·         Topographical survey urgently required so Calvin can commenced broad Design

·         PT suggested to raise an initial sum of US$100k to US$200k  to cover the initial costs of the survey / architect work

·         SO raised the question if there is a need to get quotes from at least 2 architects.

·         PT suggested and it was agreed to invite Karma’s brother-in-law to submit a proposal so the group can determine its “reasonableness”(MaT to initiate; SC to follow through ?)

·         SW to seek advice from Jeff Lee regarding reasonableness of these quotes (SW + Others?)

 

7.       Financing

 

·         MaT said that from a discussion in Bhutan, Karma’s brother in law gave a rough indication of US$40 per sq. ft. to construct using local materials

·         Based on the above indications, the Project is estimated to cost US$1mil.

·         Fred Tsao has committed to finance 50% or up to US$500k.

·         Singapore Project Team aims to raise US$800k to US$1mil to cater of expected costs overrun.

·         PT suggests that we commit US$800k to Bhutan.

 

8.       Administrative Structure

 

·         Confirming roles of various bodies :

 

Ø       Monk Body (headed by Jhe Khenpo)

Ø       Department of Religious Affairs (headed by Karma)

Ø       Tsao Foundation (Project Holder)

 

 

·         Review Chart for Roles and Sub-committees of Singapore Project Team (see updated Chart attached)

 

9.       Break

 

 

10.    Reports from sub-committees : (a) MOU and (b) Fund-raising

 

(a)     MOU – 2 Key Areas for discussions and clarification, viz.

 

·         Party to the MOU – Either Tsao Foundation or a separate Legal Entity? (SO to recommend) Tsao Foundation has a secular charter, will act as Project Holder, and offering its secretarial services and infrastructure to the Project Team.  All agreed the Project would have its own Name and Branding.

·         Day-to-day Control of the Construction Phase of Project – Issue to resolve is the level of control The Project Team desires in the day-to-day management of the project at the ground level. On one extreme, we leave that responsibility to the Monk Body (in this case most likely Karma) to decide on the acceptance of milestones to design and specs, and Spore merely processes the payments. On the other hand, Spore may wish to have some role in certifying the level of performance to critical project milestones (by way of physical inspections or through an independently appointed Project Manager or Architect). All feedback welcomed. Decision needed promptly to enable completion of MOU.( Members comments to SO by Friday 20 June please )

 

(b)     Fund Raising – Key issues reported as follow:

 

 

·         Core Values and Principles – SW to craft a “Branding” for the Project to build awareness and communicate the “raison d’être” of the Project to the general public and donors

·         Target Benefactor/Sponsor/Donor segmentation :

 

Segment	% Target Funds	Donor No’s	USD per Donor	Total USD
Major Donors	20	2	100,000	200,000
Serious Donors	40	40	10,000	400,000
Donor	40	2000	200	400,000

 

Total target amount to be raised USD 1 million.

Fund raising strategies to include direct approach (major donors), pilgrimage tours, Buddha statues, etc, etc. Detailed programs to be developed.

 

·         Seed Money – To get the preliminary actions going, a small amount of seed money is urgently needed. (MaT, SO, MW to discuss further?)

·         Video Production – LO to get quotes to produce a promotional video that may cost up to $20k depending on the quality of the finished product. If we aim for Broadcast quality, we could possibly generate returns well in excess of the cost, with net proceeds going to the fund raising efforts.

 

 

 

11. Next Meeting – Tuesday 5 August 2008.   7 PM