Transcribe
Translate
United Campus Ministry papers, 1970-1972
1971-05-10 Melrose Daycare Center Page 3
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
The IUCCMC Executive Committee asked our Board to consider the question of incorporating Melrose Day Care Center. Consequently the following persons met on 1/22/71 for this purpose. Present: Pearl Zemlicka and Dick Wilmeth, property and finance co-chairmen for the local Board, and both knowledgable and involved in Day Care matters since its earliest planning stages; Marianne Michael, local Board member whose chief responsibility is the Day Care; Marilyn Long, chairman of our local Strategy and Ministry committee when Day Care came into being and actively involved until she was elected to the IUCCMC; Bobbe Akre, director of the Day Care; Sally Smith and Phil Shively, campus ministers; and Lloyd Epley, a local attorney who served as treasurer for our UCCM Board when the EUBs were involved. He is quite familiar with the Day Care and with our insurance coverage, having consulted with us regarding these as recently as several months ago. SOME GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS WERE DISCUSSED: Mr. Epley felt that there would be no advantages in incorporating Melrose Day Care Center unless we could foresee its continuance for long duration (at least 10 years) with an independent Board that would separate UCCM from its present responsibilities. Some implications involved in such a decision would include: 1. The length of commitment we could foresee to continue Melrose Day Care in light of possible developments by the University, the public school, or independent groups to pick up these needs. We have been constantly alert to, and hopeful about these possibilities, and have consequently re-evaluated our own involvement in day care on a year-by-year basis. 2. The establishment of an independent board. This possibility was explored in the beginning, but we soon discovered that while some people are quite generous in giving advice and help in a variety of ways, they are not ready to assume the legal, financial, and other day-b-day commitments for operating a day care. 3. The question of property. The Presbyterian Synod, through its appropriate body, would need to be consulted regarding the use of their property if the Day Care would become a separate entity and cease to be an integral part of UCCM program. It was Mr. Epley's opinion that there would be no real advantage in incorporating the Day Care if the UCCM continued to maintain close ties to the Day Care (e.g. acting as members of the Day Care Board, continuing some financial help, providing secretarial or bookkeeping assistance, etc.) THE MAJOR QUESTION SEEMS TO BE THAT OF LIABILITY AND THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WAS SHARED BY MR. EPLEY: --If incorporated, the Day Care could be sued only to the extent of its assets. Corporation officers could not be sued. --However, if an accident occurred because of property, the property owners could be sued whether the Day Care was incorporated or not. (continued)
Saving...
prev
next
The IUCCMC Executive Committee asked our Board to consider the question of incorporating Melrose Day Care Center. Consequently the following persons met on 1/22/71 for this purpose. Present: Pearl Zemlicka and Dick Wilmeth, property and finance co-chairmen for the local Board, and both knowledgable and involved in Day Care matters since its earliest planning stages; Marianne Michael, local Board member whose chief responsibility is the Day Care; Marilyn Long, chairman of our local Strategy and Ministry committee when Day Care came into being and actively involved until she was elected to the IUCCMC; Bobbe Akre, director of the Day Care; Sally Smith and Phil Shively, campus ministers; and Lloyd Epley, a local attorney who served as treasurer for our UCCM Board when the EUBs were involved. He is quite familiar with the Day Care and with our insurance coverage, having consulted with us regarding these as recently as several months ago. SOME GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS WERE DISCUSSED: Mr. Epley felt that there would be no advantages in incorporating Melrose Day Care Center unless we could foresee its continuance for long duration (at least 10 years) with an independent Board that would separate UCCM from its present responsibilities. Some implications involved in such a decision would include: 1. The length of commitment we could foresee to continue Melrose Day Care in light of possible developments by the University, the public school, or independent groups to pick up these needs. We have been constantly alert to, and hopeful about these possibilities, and have consequently re-evaluated our own involvement in day care on a year-by-year basis. 2. The establishment of an independent board. This possibility was explored in the beginning, but we soon discovered that while some people are quite generous in giving advice and help in a variety of ways, they are not ready to assume the legal, financial, and other day-b-day commitments for operating a day care. 3. The question of property. The Presbyterian Synod, through its appropriate body, would need to be consulted regarding the use of their property if the Day Care would become a separate entity and cease to be an integral part of UCCM program. It was Mr. Epley's opinion that there would be no real advantage in incorporating the Day Care if the UCCM continued to maintain close ties to the Day Care (e.g. acting as members of the Day Care Board, continuing some financial help, providing secretarial or bookkeeping assistance, etc.) THE MAJOR QUESTION SEEMS TO BE THAT OF LIABILITY AND THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WAS SHARED BY MR. EPLEY: --If incorporated, the Day Care could be sued only to the extent of its assets. Corporation officers could not be sued. --However, if an accident occurred because of property, the property owners could be sued whether the Day Care was incorporated or not. (continued)
Campus Culture
sidebar
