History

July 26, 1994

Letter from Robert Kreider to Marion Deckert, Secretary of the Council of Higher Education. Enclosed draft on Marpeck Fund proposal. Sent copy to Mennonite Foundation. Will be sufficient funds in the account to cover expenses for an organizational meeting of the Deans’ Committee later in the 1994-95 academic year.

September 22, 1994

Memo to Wynn Goering, Dean at Bethel and Marpeck Chair from Marion Deckert cc: Robert Kreider.

  • The Dean’s Committee will consist of:
    • Voting Members – Dean of Bethel Bluffton and MBS
    • Ex-officio Members – Dean of CMBC and Conrad Grebel and the Secretary of HEC
  • The Marpeck fund will fund an annual meeting of the committee.
  • The duty of chairing the group will rotate among the voting members.
  • An initial organizational meeting should be set up in spring.

No date, but was in “early stages” folder

MARPECK Fund Proposal

In the course of the last Higher Education Council (HEC) meetings and the Bluffton and Bethel College Reviews conducted by HEC, it has come to my attention that there is a fair amount of interest in faculty orientation/development activities. Specifically, two different suggestions have been made. One idea would be to provide a binational (or national if that seems to work better) orientation event for new faculty at Mennonite colleges. I do not wish to follow up this suggestion with this note, but if there is interest we can discuss it further.

The other suggestion is to work out a Summer Institute for Mennonite College Faculty where the specific agenda would be to reflect on faculty roles and tasks from a theological perspective. Such in institute might be, at least in part, led by members of the Seminary Faculty.

The suggestion comes out of a conviction that there is too little time for our faculty members to reflect on the theological foundations of Mennonite Higher Education. The basic idea being that such reflection would help build a fundamental community of purpose on campus, and strengthen the overall churchly character of our colleges. It should also help foster understanding and cooperation between Mennonite Colleges. In addition, it might help to moderate the natural tendency of college faculty to look to their discipline for self-understanding and models.

July 11, 1995

Letter to Kreiders from Wynn Goering, Dean at Bethel and Marpeck Chair:

Spent a good portion of initial meeting determining various kinds of administrative detail. The deans’ committee also discussed a number of possible uses to which the fund might be put, but we realized that neither we nor the fund were in a position to initiate activities just yet. When we meet again next spring (per your suggestion) we will devote our time more exclusively to programming. In the meantime we are seeking the counsel of the Mennonite Foundation to know how to budget the fund’s proceeds responsibly.

Letter to Mennonite Foundation from Wynn Goering, Dean at Bethel and Marpeck Chair:

“…as you know, the Kreiders intend this fund to be an endowment for ‘the support of inter-campus academic enrichment programs’ among our three institutions and asked the college deans to develop those programs and serve as trustees of the fund.”

At the May meeting the deans realized that they would like some kind of formula or policy that would allow them to budget with reasonable accuracy. Asked Mennonite Foundation for counsel. “What would be your recommendation regarding a policy for the disbursement of endowment earnings? A percentage of the average annual principal? (I believe the Common Fund suggests about 5%?) A simple portion each year’s earnings? Some other formula?”

“Adopted the calendar year as our fiscal year, and decided to use the fiscal year prior to our spring meetings as a baseline for our program budget.”

No date but was in “early stages” folder (1995?)

Possible joint Higher Education Council (HEC) – Mennonite Board of Education (MBE) Project – Faculty/Administrators Orientation Seminar

  • The prospectus for a joint orientation/seminar event will be presented at the joint HEC/MBE sessions in Chicago, June 7-8, 1996.
  • MBE and HEC will separately consider whether to authorize a joint planning effort for such a project.
  • If both groups agree to develop a full proposal, the chairs and secretaries of MBE and HEC would appoint a joint planning committee. The planning committee would be charged with developing a specific proposal in time for HEC and MBE action no later than early 1997. The proposal should include suggestions on costs and staffing.
  • If both groups approve the plan it would move to the implementation stage. If possible the first seminar should be planned for summer or fall 1997. A joint oversight group might be constituted to assist the staff in development.

No date but was in “early stages” folder

Email from Dale Schrag to Anita Stalter, Beryl Brubaker, Ervin Stutzman, Harry Huebner, John Kampen, John Sheriff, John Yordy, Marc Yoder, Marie Morris, Marlene Epp, Loren Johns, Ron Penner:

Subject: Marpeck Deans Meeting agenda item – “Expansion of Marpeck Deans”

States that one of the documents was prepared at the request of the Kreiders to give all of you some background into how this fund came about. “I think it’s fair to say that the Kreiders have some real concerns about the future of the fund and they will be very interested to see the results of our discussions in Winnipeg.” Also included 1) a brief history of the Marpeck Fund and 2) the original memorandum of understanding at the time of the initiation of the fund.

A Fund for Academic Enrichment Serving Bethel College, Bluffton College and Mennonite Biblical Seminary (MBS)

A program initially funded by the two Kreider families through the Mennonite Foundation for the support of inter-campus academic enrichment programs among Bethel College, Bluffton College and Mennonite Biblical Seminary. Canadian Mennonite Bible College and Conrad Grebel, both Canadian colleges, are welcomed as affiliated participants in the program.

A corpus that could amount to $500,000 or more by the end of 10 years. Mennonite Foundation to administer the funds for a modest fee (?%). The earnings from the fund to accumulate and to be available for annual distribution beginning in 1995-96. Mennonite Foundation encouraged to pursue an active investment policy. Twenty percent (?) of annual earnings to be added annually to the principal to insure that the income from the fund continues at a steady level of purchasing power. Funds not allocated in one year may accumulate to be added to that available for distribution the following years.

Twenty years after the fund reaches $500,000 the record, purposes and future of the trust should be reviewed by the participating Institutions (the Deans’ Committee together with the respective administrations and/or trustees). If the participating institutions recommend to the Mennonite Foundation reformulation or discontinuation of this program, it may be revised or the funds disposed of, providing this is done attentive to the spirit of the original context of purpose.

Objective of the fund: to strengthen cooperation among the above academic institutions in the sharing of faculty resources and joint academic programming. An accent on the sharing of people resources and in programs oriented to peacemaking, international service and other church-related ministries. A preference for teaching and study-related programs rather than individual research and publication. The funds are not to be distributed for individual campus programs but rather for inter-campus programs. For example the following:

  • Tuition support for students from Bethel, Bluffton, CMBC and Conrad Grebel colleges enrolling at MBS for an interterm, short term or summer course, the credit for which can be transferred back to the respective college. A testing-of-the-seminary-experience. High priority to be given to a program that helps undergraduate students to become acquainted with and to consider the option of seminary study. A limit of thirty percent of annual fund allocations is suggested for this purpose.
  • As a second high priority program, support for inter-institutional faculty exchange for lectures, demonstrations, consultations, classroom presentations–the host campus to provide hospitality, the visiting faculty member to receive from the fund travel expenses and a modest honorarium.
  • Support for attendance by students and faculty from the member campuses at academic conferences, seminars, or workshops hosted on another campus.
  • Support for occasional joint meetings of faculty members in related academic areas to share academic concerns related to common institutional values and Anabaptist-Mennonite faith concerns.
  • Support for joint programming in international and peace education. Support for joint programs that exceed the resources of a particular campus: e.g. a short term or intensive summer program on teaching English as a second language, conflict resolution training international development, etc.
  • Facilitation for student exchanges between the colleges.

Recognizing that funds would not be adequate to underwrite all of the above and related joint program possibilities in one year, a Deans’ Committee would establish priorities.

Program to be administered by a committee, to be known as the Dean’s Committee, consisting of the three respective academic deans with the Secretary for the General Conference Council of Higher Education as ex-officio member, the chair to be rotated annually or biannually. The deans of Canadian Mennonite Bible College and Conrad Grebel College are invited to participate as associate, ex-officio members of the Dean’s Committee. Funding of an annual planning meeting of the Deans’ Committee to be covered by the fund. Other administrative costs (phone, mail, secretarial, etc.) to be carried by the three institutions. Since Bethel and Bluffton are liberal arts colleges with a wide range of disciplines and MBS a post graduate theological institution, more of the funding will understandably flow in to the joint undergraduate programs.

The context of purpose. The above idea grows out of a sense that General Conference institutions of higher education need to enhance their awareness and appreciation for the resources of sister institutions. Faculties and students need to know each other better. Reciprocal relationships of receiving and sharing need to be encouraged. The focus of this sharing will be on core values in the academic quest: centrality of Christ and the believers’ church, Anabaptist-shaped faith perspectives, interdisciplinary wholeness, the bonding between theory and praxis, concerns for peacemaking and the global community and a commitment to preparing students for service careers, with particular attention to the ministries of the church.

Inter-conference integration. As the Mennonite Church and the General Conference move toward integration, the above support program could be extended—at the discretion of the original Dean’s Committee—to Eastern Mennonite University, Goshen College and Hesston College. It could broaden the committee representation and could request of the new group to contribute comparable funding for endowment support. It is recognized that with integration, the name “Mennonite Biblical Seminary” may be replace. There is also an openness to the participation in this program of Mennonite Brethren and Brethren in Christ institutions of higher education—with an expectation of a similar contribution of resources to the fund’s corpus. Further, contributions to this fund would be welcome from other donors—this fund not to be identified in its public image with a particular family.

This trust to be known as “The Marpeck Fund”—recognizing Pilgrim Marpeck as a 16th century Anabaptist leader who was eager for dialogue among those of diverse but kindred faith.

Gerald and Robert Kreider in appreciation for their parents, Stella and Amos Kreider.
10-19-93..…3-12-94…..4-8-94.….7-19-94…..7-26-94

Gerald Kreider
22322 CR 28
Goshen, IN 46526

Robert Kreider
Box 365
North Newton, KS 67117

February 18, 1997

Consensus that the proposal for a joint orientation/seminar should be accepted.

A planning committee would be appointed. The task of the planning committee was to work out a proposal that was sufficiently detailed for HEC and MBE to consider for action.

Objectives and Aims could include: what it means to be a church school; studying research by Astin; how faith informs learning; learn more about who our students are; understanding the cultural setting; projecting an alternative vision for church higher education.

Principles of designing seminar: topics should be of academic interest; significant involvement of church pastors and lay persons; mix of presenters from church, college and outside; not be conceived strictly as an orientation event, nor should it be assumed to require all new appointees, nor should it be confined only to newer faculty or administrators.

Event held in early June.

June 15, 1997

Try to carry out the faculty exchange program during this coming academic year. The new chair should inform all members this summer to proceed with implementation plans. $6,000 available for the program. The only assumed costs are travel and the stipend. Expenses above that will need to be approved by the chair. Hosting (e.g., food and housing) is the responsibility of the receiving institution.
Students may accompany if no additional travel costs are involved and if the receiving institution is willing to host.

Marion Deckert will check with Ted Stuckey to see if the General Conference could serve as “the bank” for the earnings.

Discussed Faculty Event involving faculty from MC and GC institutions. A concerted effort should be made to involve those faculty that do not “congregate naturally” (i.e., historians and theologians seem to, musicians, chemists, nurses, etc., do not.) Faculty and students from one institution to observe a major event at another institution (e.g., peace, justice, development, international affairs, etc.). Could the fund be used to bring someone from the Third World to itinerate to all our campuses?
Remember, the proposals cannot require sustained funding over two or more years.

June 17, 1997

  • Email from Gayle Gerber Koontz to Willard Swartley and cc Marion Deckert
  • Lots of turnover in deans including acting chair. Willard appointed Dean for a two-year term.

July 31, 1997

Email to Mike Keller, interim controller at Bethel College from Dale Schrag, secretary General Conference Higher Education Council

“The first chair of the administrative group was Wynn Goering, our former academic dean. Since the chair was serving as the primary administrator, the group determined that the earnings pool should reside at the institution of the current chair. He or she could then disperse moneys as needed without any intermediate steps.

The administrative committee met last month (15 June) in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and decided to recommend changes to this policy in response to two developments. First, thanks to a robust economy, the money generated was much more significant than anyone had anticipated, opening up the possibility that it would not be spent in a single year and should be earning some sort of interest in the meantime. Second, Wynn’s resignation resulted in an abrupt and unanticipated shift in the chairmanship of the committee (the current chair is Willard Swartley of AMBS). Given the fact that the national average of tenure for a dean is something on the order of 2.5 years, this circumstance will likely happen with some frequency. Thus, the committee determined that stability of location for the fund was a matter of some substance. It was further determined that the most stable location would be the General Conference headquarters, since the HEC secretary is an ex-officio member of the committee.”

August 1, 1997

Memo to file (Dale Schrag)

1 August 1997

  • Bob Kreider visited.
  • I brought him up to date on Marpeck Fund activities.
  • *He suggested we might want to consider simply “banking” at Mennonite Foundation rather than shifting funds to General Conference.
  • *Would like to see some international component in the new structure

April 10, 1999

Minutes from Deans meeting

Marpeck will fund the transportation costs of sending two faculty from Marpeck institutions to this new faculty orientation. If the “senior faculty member” who is specified to attend as part of the “scholar team” of trainers does not have her or his travel expense paid, Marpeck will cover those travel costs as well. The first conference will be August 17-19, 2000.

Agreed on the following guidelines:

  • We would fund only one proposal per year;
  • Only Marpeck Fund schools would be eligible to apply;
  • Proposals must be collaborative efforts of at least two Marpeck institutions;
  • Efforts will be made to distribute grants fairly, so that the same institution is not repeatedly funded;
  • Grant applications in all disciplines are solicited;
  • Grants will be funded at a maximum of 80% of total cost, to a maximum dollar figure of $6000 (US); *within those parameters, funds may be used for any legitimate purpose including planning costs, publishing proceedings, performance costs, etc.* costs must include transportation expenses for at least two faculty or staff members from each Marpeck institution attending the event.
  • Proposals must be submitted to the Higher Education Office of the General Conference Mennonite Church by 1 March;
  • Applicants will be notified by 15 May of that year.

December 6, 2001

Questions from Bob Kreider to Dale Schrag

Bob’s concerns due to launching of the new Higher Education Council with new executive, Dale’s retirement, who controls withdrawal of funds?

Marpeck Deans discussed at June meeting in Waterloo. Their position was that the Marpeck Fund is an independent fund which does NOT belong to HEC. It was their view that its benefits should be broadened to include all the deans in the new church (and our Canadian members would like to invite Columbia Bible College as well), but the fund itself should still be administered by the deans.

January 25, 2002

Dale met with Bob and Gerald Kreider. They are VERY concerned that the Marpeck Fund not be used as a means purely to finance deans meetings. They would like to send a written document to the MEA which outlines the purposes and hopes of the Marpeck Fund. Bob again emphasized the goal of promoting faculty interaction.

August 8, 2002

Minutes from Marpeck meeting

  • Moved that EMU, Goshen, and Hesston be invited to become members of the Marpeck Deans Committee. Carried unanimously.
  • Moved that each institution sends one representative, except for EMU, which will be allowed to send a second representative at the institution’s expense. Carried.
  • Consensus was that Columbia not be included in the group, but that an invitation should be offered for CBC to attend the next meeting.
  • Consensus to ask the Kreiders to consider re-writing the guidelines for the fund, considering such changes as only using 5% of the interest (corpus) each year rather than the present 80/20 arrangement.
  • Consensus to ask Dale to continue to serve as secretary for two more years (assuming BC agrees)
  • Moved that given the importance of this meeting for advancing the cause of Mennonite higher education on a bi-national level, the Marpeck Deans continue to meet annually. Efforts will be made to control administrative costs in order to maximize the available funds for programming.

The Marpeck Fund

In 1993, Gerald and Robert Kreider established with Mennonite Foundation a fund for “inter campus academic enrichment programs among Bethel College, Bluffton College, and Mennonite Biblical Seminary.” The original memorandum of understanding, appended to this report, specified that the deans of the three institutions named above, plus the secretary of the General Conference Mennonite Church Higher Education Council (ex officio), would constitute the Dean’s Committee which would administer the distribution of any funds. That memorandum also specified that Canadian Mennonite Bible College and Conrad Grebel College could participate as “affiliate members.”

The educational landscape has changed significantly in the last ten years. “Mennonite Biblical Seminary” no longer exists-the Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminaries has become the Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary. Canadian Mennonite Bible College is not a constituent member of Canadian Mennonite University, and CMBC no longer defines itself as a unique entity. Its self-definition is totally subsumed in CMU . In March of 1998, the general boards of the Mennonite Church, the General Conference Mennonite Church, and the Conference of Mennonites in Canada voted to carry forward the integration discussions utilizing a two-country model. Mennonite Church Canada was formed at St. Louis 1999; and, at Nashville 2001, the formation of the Mennonite Church USA was consummated with the merger of the (US) General Conference and the (US) Mennonite Church.

Not surprisingly, these changes in educational landscape have had subtle and not-so-subtle impacts on the Marpeck Fund. Early on in this integration process, Robert Kreider communicated the Kreiders’ openness to changing needs und priorities in response to the changes in the educational landscape.

And changes have taken place. In the face of the two-country decision, the Dean’s Committee sensed a greater need for Canadian participation, and began to consider the CGC and CMBC/CMU deans as equals rather than “affiliates.” Indeed, the Dean’s Committee is currently chaired by Harry Huebner of CMU. In the new integration environment, the Dean’s Committee naturally began looking for ways to include MBE institutions (see project descriptions below), who were rapidly becoming “sister institutions” in a new and profound way. Now, with the formal completion of the integration process, the Dean’s Committee has recommended that Eastern Mennonite University, Goshen College, and Hesston College on the US side and Columbia Bible College on the Canadian side be invited to become Marpeck Fund participants.

In response to this recommendation Gerald and Robert Kreider suggested that a document delineating the history and evolution of the Marpeck Fund could be useful. The current document represents an effort to provide same.

Project Review

The original Memorandum of Understanding specifies that the goal of the program is “to strengthen cooperation among the above academic institutions in the sharing of faculty resources and joint academic programming.” Among suggested categories for projects utilizing funds generated by the Marpeck Endowment were the following:

  • Tuition support for students of member schools to enroll for short-term courses at MBS, the credit then being transferred back to the member school. Support for inter-institutional faculty exchanges for lectures, demonstrations, consultations, and classroom presentations.
  • Support for attendance by students and faculty from the member campuses at academic conferences, seminars, or workshops hosted on another campus.
  • Support for occasional joint meetings of faculty members in related academic areas to share academic concerns related to common institutional values and Anabaptist­ Mennonite faith concerns.
  • Support for joint programming in international and peace education.
  • Facilitation for student exchanges between the colleges.

Of the examples here listed, all but the first and the last have been utilized on more than one occasion.

  • Marpeck Funds have been utilized each year to support faculty visits among the member colleges (e.g., in 2001, a member of the Bethel science faculty, knee-deep in planning for the new Krehbiel Science Center at Bethel, visited Bluffton to tour the new Centennial Hall and deliver a lecture on Bethel’s program in distance science education).
  • Marpeck Funds have been used to bring Mennonite college faculty together to discuss restorative justice curricula (the most recent example was on the campus of Bluffton College. In this case, the Dean’s Committee voted to provide funding for two faculty from Marpeck member institutions to attend, but only one faculty member from other Mennonite colleges.)
  • Marpeck Funds were used to underwrite some of the planning costs for a New Faculty Orientation event held on the campus of Hesston College in August of 2000. This event was for all MC USA and MC Canada colleges. Marpeck also helped fund the attendance of faculty members from its five member institutions.
  • The Dean’s Committee has committed some funding to underwrite some of the costs of a conference on Mennonite literature (October 2002), which is jointly sponsored by Conrad Grebel College and Goshen College.
  • Marpeck Funds have also been utilized to underwrite the costs of an annual meeting of the deans of the member institutions.

It is clear that the recommended expansion of the Marpeck Fund member institutions would have the effect of significantly reducing the impact of the income generated by the Fund-particularly if Marpeck Funds are used to underwrite the costs of annual meetings of the deans. Indeed, it is possible to imagine most of the generated income going to fund what could be viewed as “administrative costs” (i.e., underwriting the expenses of gathering nine deans annually instead of five). It is anticipated that the Mennonite Education Agency will assemble the US deans at least once annually, and one can imagine a strong inclination to use Marpeck Funds to underwrite the costs of that meeting rather than (a) institutional funds or (b) MEA funds.

The point to be made is that if four more institutions are added as participating institutions in the Marpeck Fund, it may be prudent to consider a re-evaluation of how Marpeck Fund monies are spent. The original vision suggested that “administrative costs” were the least desirable expenditure of Marpeck Funds (a position that has been strongly reiterated in recent conversation with the Kreiders).
If return rates on endowment continue to fall, and if the number of institutions is increased, those costs could soon eat up at least half of the spendable earnings.

What are some possible responses?

  1. In line with the founding vision of the Marpeck Fund, it could be determined that only a certain percentage of the earnings pool (or perhaps none at all) could be utilized for the costs of getting the deans together. Any additional funds needed would have to come from the institutions themselves.
  2. An effort could be made to bring additional capital into the endowment, so that the earnings pool would grow sufficiently so that administrative costs could be easily absorbed by the Fund.
  3. It could be decided that the membership of the Marpeck Fund should not change. Earnings could still be used occasionally to support cooperation with the non Marpeck institutions, but the governance and structure of the Fund would remain with the five institutions named in the founding document.
  4. There may well be other avenues that should be considered.

Summary

The Marpeck Fund is a precious gift to the Mennonite colleges. It provides possibilities for dreaming of new ways to cooperate, possibilities that are not bound by institutional budgets or presidential preferences. In the current “two-country” context of Mennonite Church integration, it stands as an important bi-national symbol. But if, at this important juncture in the history of the church and the colleges, the Marpeck Fund allows itself to be bound by practices that threaten to become “tradition,” its impact might be seriously compromised. It would seem, rather, that in considering a change in membership (a change that is clearly called for given this propitious moment in the life of the broader church), one must also consider a re-examination and reconsideration of the raison d’être of the Marpeck Fund. In so doing, its impact on the educational landscape of the broader church can be maximized rather than minimized.

August 8, 2002

Issues for the Kreiders arising from recommendations made at the Marpeck Deans Meeting

Recommendations only

  1. Add EMU (only one paid, a second can attend), Goshen, and Hesston deans.
  2. Continue to pay administrative costs of one meeting per year
  3. Consider changing pay-out to 5% of principal average for three preceding years.
  4. Have Dale serve as executive secretary for two more years.
  5. Do not invite Columbia College until they send a representative to a meeting
  6. Clarify ownership of the fund
  7. Shift the expendable account to Bethel College (agency account).

June 2-4, 2005

There was $5000 authorized as seed money for another Mennonite Faculty Conference in 2004. The assumption was that this conference would be organized under the auspices of the MEA. MEA was proposing a different event (all levels of Mennonite education, and primarily for administrators and board members), so in 2005 the deans decided to postpone the faculty conference to 2006. Is it safe to assume the MEA will match the $5000?

Conversation with Mike Miller from Mennonite Foundation and deans main focus on vision and purpose.

  • If we are to effectively solicit gifts for the fund, we need to sharpen the description of the fund and its purposes.
  • We should redraft the original founding document (1993) to make it more consistent with the current composition and direction for the Marpeck Fund and its members.
  • We should provide a brief prospectus of the fund for potential donors.
  • Is there a problem with donations from Canada? No.
  • We need a tag line that clearly summarizes the purposes of the fund.
  • We should compile a full list of projects funded by Marpeck.
  • The original document suggests that the deans are to be much more proactive than simply funding submitted proposals. It speaks of the deans as a “planning group.”

August 7, 2006

Minutes of the Meeting

Strategic Planning: posed series of questions

  • Should we continue to promote a Mennonite University Faculty Conference every other year?
  • Should we encourage and help fund conference based on academic disciplines?
  • Should we encourage and help fund conferences for both faculty and students?
  • Do we need to be more proactive in soliciting contributions to the Marpeck Fund?
  • Do we need a brief prospectus of the Marpeck Fund in order to assist in the solicitation process?
  • Do we need a tag line that captures the purpose and vision of the Marpeck Fund?
  • Can we compile a list of all projects funded by the Marpeck Fund to date?
  • Do we need a better grant application form?

Highlights from discussion:

The Mennonite University Faculty Conference is an important endeavor worthy of funding assistance from Marpeck.

Summarized points:

  • There appears to be a clear consensus for getting faculty together, though there is not agreement as to whether any such gathering should have a disciplinary focus.
  • There was a strong affirmation of the need for a grant application form with clear guidelines for funding decisions.
  • The grant application deadline should be 15 March.
  • The deans want to encourage a Mennonite University Faculty Conference every other year.
  • Some sentiment was expressed for at least one Faculty exchange every year.
  • Mini Grant guidelines and form created.

December 9, 2010

Minutes from Deans Teleconference call meeting

  • Consensus was that we should try to hold our meetings in conjunction with other meetings to minimize time, travel and costs.
  • Agreed that since we plan and participate in the Marpeck Schools Faculty Conference, in the years in which that event is held we will hold the meeting of the Marpeck deans at that time.
  • Agreed that since five of the nine Marpeck Deans regularly attend the annual early November conference for Academic Officers of the Council of Independent Colleges, and these Deans then caucus at those meetings, we will investigate the possibility of using that event for the Marpeck Deans meeting in the years when there is no Marpeck Schools Faculty Conference
  • Agreed Anita Stalter and Rebecca Slough will consult about hosting the next Faculty Conference at Goshen College-AMBS in August 2012. They will contact MEA.
  • Agreed Jim Pankratz will contact MEA as soon as possible to inform them of our intentions and to advise them that they can expect to hear from Anita and Rebecca.

February 3, 2011

Email to Dale and Dennis from Robert Kreider

Review of vision for Marpeck Foundation

  • To strengthen and support academic collaboration among Bethel, Bluffton, Conrad Grebel, Freeman, AMBS….with integration of Mennonite Church USA, broadening Marpeck to include OM college—Marpeck resource, thus, spread more thinly but more diversified.

Ground rules Dale and deans follow in use of Marpeck funds.

  • Role of Dale Schrag as liaison between Kreider family and Mennonite Foundation with the college deans, his point of liaison to the colleges. Wish of family that if Dale needs to be succeeded, it be with one with a Bethel-base.
  • Family wish that the Marpeck Fund retain an identity separate from Mennonite Education Agency
  • Family contact: Robert with back up of Lois and then eldest daughter Esther Eash, who is a resident in Newton. For family of Gerald, now deceased, Alice Kreider, Kidron-Bethel Village, can be kept informed.

February 18, 2011

Email from Robert Kreider to Judy Godshalk at Everence, CC Dale and Melanie Z.

“The Marpeck Fund was established out of gratitude for the role which Mennonite colleges and seminaries have played in the life of our family: Goshen College, Bluffton College, Bethel College and Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary.” (Bob then explains family connections)

“This network of bonding to our several colleges has shaped our giving. The Marpeck Fund seeks to undergird programs that support our shared Anabaptist heritage and mission.”

Article:

“The Marpeck Fund was founded by Gerald and Robert Kreider to support conferences and other gatherings that promote interaction between the institutions and their students on a wide range of subjects. Ultimately, the fund is meant to strengthen the bonds between the schools, nurturing cooperation and sharing among staff and students.”

Brochure created to promote donations to the fund (2011?)

The Marpeck Fund provides grants to foster collaboration between Mennonite institutions of higher education. These funds encourage and strengthen ties among Mennonite colleges and seminaries: joint faculty workshops, student participation in inter-campus conferences, faculty exchange visits and lectures, cooperative program planning.

A family with loyalties and affections for several Mennonite colleges and seminaries established the fund in 1993. Since then, the fund has grown to $600,000. All proceeds fund projects designed to quicken and undergird the spirit of mutuality among Mennonite colleges and seminaries.

December 16, 2011

Email to Elaine Moyer at MEA from Jim Pankratz (final action as chair of Marpeck Deans), cc: deans
Subject: Marpeck Deans and MEA

First, we regard MEA as an essential partner in our service to Mennonite Higher Education. We and our institutions and the constituencies we serve will all be more successful if our partnership is active and effective.

Second, our roles are both different and complementary. MEA has a variety of roles, ranging from governance oversight to the facilitation of specific events for the professional development of our faculty and administrators. While the work of the Chief Academic Officers and Deans seems more focused internally on the personnel and programs within each of our institutions, it is profoundly affected by our larger social context, the health of the Mennonite Church, the governance and financial strength of our institutions, and the personal lives of our students. In truth, our work also shapes all of these.

Third, we think that it is best for us to work with MEA on matters that do not raise issues of governance and oversight. In other words, when we collaborate on projects it would be best if we could do so as partners who each bring their best contribution to the shared venture, rather than understanding one partner as being largely accountable to the other. There may be a significant difference in what each partner contributes (ideas, finances, administrative leadership, public profile, personnel, facilities), but the partnership should be mutual. There are other contexts in which some of our institutions and MEA have a different relationship that is clearly defined and appropriate in those spheres.

Fourth, the distinctive role of the Marpeck Deans as a group is to focus on the potential for creative and significant collaborations among our schools. When we meet we appreciate the opportunity to report to each other about the issues within our schools, but our reason for existence is to stimulate and facilitate projects and relationships among our schools, especially those that bring our faculty and students together. This is where we focus our financial resources and our time when we meet. It is for this primary task that we welcome a partnership with MEA. We hope that in this sphere our relationship with MEA will be the kind in which ideas and possibilities will flourish, that the Deans can test ideas with MEA and MEA can do the same with the Deans.

Fifth, there are some matters that we as Deans are able to address when we are together because we are peers who share similar responsibilities and can offer each other support, counsel, and encouragement. We are grateful as Deans that we have this one setting, provided by the Marpeck vision and Fund, in which to experience such mutuality. That aspect of our shared work is parallel to what we hope to accomplish when we bring together Bible teachers, or biologists, or nursing instructors from our schools. We hope that they will inform, enrich and support each other. We are pleased to provide the context for these relationships to develop, and are glad when they do so quite independently once they have been established.

Sixth, we believe that it would be helpful for the Deans and MEA to have clearly defined “contact people” for whom our shared agenda is a priority, with whom we can consult and through whom we can expect decisions to be made and action to be taken. With changing personnel and shifting responsibilities this has been difficult in recent years. Communication has been irregular and the locus and process of decision-making has been unclear. That has limited the potential for productive collaboration.

Seventh, we would be pleased to have regular information from and consultation with MEA. We try to have one or two conference calls a year and also to meet in person once a year. We discussed how this could provide the basis for a pattern of consultation and planning between Marpeck Deans and MEA. In the year in which a Faculty Conference is held, the Deans and a person or persons from MEA could meet at that event. The MEA personnel and the Deans would also have other agenda to address, but part of their agenda at that Faculty Conference would be to meet together. In years when the Deans do not meet at a Faculty Conference but at one of their professional conferences, a representative from MEA might join them for part of the meeting through a telephone connection. Depending on issues that are current at the time, MEA might also participate in other telephone conference calls during any year. On any given issue there might also be considerable correspondence between the Deans and MEA.

January 26, 2012

Email from Robert Kreider to Dale Schrag and Brad Born

Following is a summary of a meeting yesterday with Dale Schrag, Brad Born, Lois and Robert Kreider to review present understandings related to the Marpeck “Fund, this to be shared with Dennis LeFevre, Everence, for his information and response.

  1. Current size of fund: $735,216.96 as of December 31, 2011, which has appreciated in the last month.
  2. Liaison/custodian for the fund: Dennis LeFevre replacing Mike Miller.
  3. Liaison between Kreider family and Marpeck Fund: Dale Schrag, who originally came into this responsibility in his role as Secretary for the Higher Education Council of the evolving Mennonite Church USA. The council of academic deans of Mennonite Church colleges and seminaries participate with Schrag in allocations from the Marpeck Fund. In event of need for a successor to Dale Schrag, Bethel’s Academic Dean is to serve in that role.
  4. Family contact: Robert Kreider with Lois Kreider in reserve as family representative. Their daughter Esther Eash, Newton, KS, followed by son David Kreider, North Newton, KS, is available as backup. With Gerald and Alice Kreider deceased, Robert Kreider (followed by Lois and then Esther) can keep Gerald’s children informed of developments in the fund. The linkage to Gerald’s children is Jean Reichenbach, Harrisonburg, Virginia and James Kreider, Lawrence, Kansas.
  5. The Marpeck Fund maintains a separate identity from the Mennonite Education Association of Mennonite Church USA.
  6. The Mennonite colleges and seminaries participating in the allocation of the Marpeck Funds are ones affiliated with Mennonite Church USA and Mennonite Church Canada. The original participants were Bethel College, Bluffton College, Freeman Junior College, AMBS, Conrad Grebel College and Mennonite Bible College (Winnipeg) of the General Conference Mennonite Church.
  7. Files that go back to 1993 and 1994 outline the original purposes of the Marpeck Fund. These statements continue as the purpose of the Marpeck Fund.
  8. An early vision of Mike Miller that the Marpeck Fund would appeal to a wider circle of Mennonite donors and multiple institutional loyalties has not been achieved. The Kreider donors would encourage renewed effort to invite donors with multiple higher education affections to select the Marpeck Fund for support. Marpeck is a counter-cultural challenge to ethno-centric philanthropy.
  9. At the time of the annual report from the Mennonite Foundation, the Kreider family would welcome a brief report on how Marpeck funds have been used in the past year and are projected for the following year.

August 1, 2012

Minutes of meeting

Dale reported that, thanks to a significant infusion of funds from the estate of Gerald Kreider, the fund balance is currently over 1.2 million dollars. Dale also noted the following from a meeting with Bob Kreider.

  • “In the event of a need for a successor to Dale Schrag, Bethel’s academic dean is to serve in that role” [This is clearly done not in order to give preferential treatment to Bethel-assuming this role confers some sort of advantage-but because the family contacts who will step in after Bob’s passing all live in the Newton/North Newton area].
  • Lois Kreider will serve as family representative if Bob is no longer able; Esther Eash, daughter, is the next in line; then son David Kreider.
  • “The Marpeck Fund maintains a separate identity from the Mennonite Education Association of Mennonite Church USA.”
  • “Files that go back to 1993 and 1994 outline the original purposes of the Marpeck Fund. These statements continue as the purpose of the Marpeck Fund.”

Other agenda items:

Consensus: The application should have a statement about the Kreiders at the beginning. It should list the criteria for consideration. It should declare that no grant can exceed $10,000, and state a range for smaller grants. Application deadlines should be January 1 (with a decision promised no later than February 28) and July 1 (with a decision promised no later than August 31). A report is required and will be shared with the deans, perhaps on a Moodle site. The application form should also include a list of grants funded within the last five years.

Consensus: The deans agreed to pay 50% of the travel costs incurred by Hesston and Bethel for sending faculty to the MHEFC in Goshen.

May 28, 2014

Minutes from meeting

Dale reported that Dennis LeFevre of the Mennonite Foundation has indicated that he would like to see a clearer and more formal statement of Marpeck Fund policies the next time we request a pay-out from the fund. Dale also noted that a recent press release on a meeting that was partially funded by Marpeck made no mention of Marpeck funding. We had always assumed this to be a requirement in receiving funds. This led to an extended discussion about the need for a Marpeck web site that would list

  • A history of grants;
  • Guidelines for grants;
  • A link to any published papers that were part of Marpeck-funded conferences.

The policy document should state the title of the potion currently occupied by Dale, the responsibilities of that position, the roles and responsibilities of the deans, the pattern for funding the faculty conference, who else (e.g., MEA) should sponsor and support the conferences, etc.

Consensus: A subgroup of the Marpeck Deans, made up of those attending the CIC meeting in Portland this fall, will prepare a policy document (with the help of Dennis LeFevre of Mennonite Foundation) and present it to the other Marpeck Deans for approval at the next Marpeck Deans meeting to take place in fall 2015.

Because Robert Kreider has specified that “management” of the fund should remain in the North Newton, KS, region, Dale will pass the responsibility on to the office of the academic dean at Bethel.

November 14, 2014

Email correspondence from Brad Born to Sally Sommer, Anita Salter, Fred Kniss

Requesting approval for proposed policy to be approved fall 2015:

Policy for the Marpeck Fund Liaison at Bethel College to Request a Transfer from the Marpeck Fund:

  1. For any withdrawal/transfer requested, the Liaison must present a copy of minutes from the Marpeck approved projects that will require funding in the year ahead, including an approximate cost for those approved projects.
  2. In addition to providing such minutes that identify approved projects and expected costs, the Marpeck Fund Liaison, when making any request to Everence for a withdrawal/transfer from the Marpeck Fund, must copy request to the current chair of the Marpeck Deans.

November 7, 2015

Minutes from Meeting

Update on Marpeck Fund. The minutes from May 2014 Marpeck deans meeting indicated that there would be a policy revision at Portland in fall 2014, based on a request from the Mennonite Foundation for more detailed documentation of the disbursement of funds; however, Brad Born later reported that this policy revision was not needed. Bob will check to see if any further action is desired.

Because Robert Kreider has specified that “management” of the fund should remain in the North Newton, Kansas, region, Bob Milliman has inherited oversight of the Marpeck fund. Bob distributed a report (attached), which showed the endowment fund balance as of 30 September, 2015, was $1,391,231.19. A three-year average of the fund using the 31 December balance for each of the past three years is $1,386,776.76. We are limited to spending no more than 4% of that total in 2015, which would be $55,471.06. To date, we have spent (or committed) approximately $30,800 this year.

We noted the comments from Robert Kreider included at the bottom of the financial report, “I have no special counsel for your meeting, simply encouragement to use all of the funds in this year’s allocation to enhance stimulation and fellowship among student and faculty on our several campuses. Not the least – to undergird the bonds of our shared faith community.”

Consensus: The 2016 MEA-Marpeck conference will be held in Kansas, May 25-27, with a theme of “The Fidelity of Place.”

November 4, 2017

Minutes from meeting

Interpretation of Funding Criteria:

Issue—What constitutes collaboration among institutions? Only Marpeck institutions? Only Mennonite institutions? Something else?

Consensus:

Accurate proposals on the nature of collaboration are needed from the sponsoring Marpeck institution. Once funds are granted, appropriate flexibility in using the funds can be allowed. That flexibility, however, should be reflected in the report from the institution granted funds. Deference here especially should be given to programs that involve cross-border collaboration. M/S/A

June 4, 2018

Review of Proposal Guidelines

  • Reminder: Due dates for proposals are now March 1 and September 1.
  • Question for discussion: Are we satisfied with the review criteria?
  • Issue from last meeting was raised again: To what extent should projects be funded that involve sponsoring institutions that are not Marpeck institutions?
  • This led to a discussion on the nature and future of the Mennonite Higher Education Faculty Conference (MHEFC).

Nature and Future of MHEFC

  • Idea: Consider an arrangement in which the Marpeck Deans meeting is held along with a combined meeting of the MHEFC and the Mennonite Graduate Conference, both conferences currently being held bi-annually. Deans, then, would still meet bi-annually at CIC.
    • If this were to occur, participation in the Graduate Conference may need to be broadened beyond the typical theological emphasis. So, if this direction were pursued, the first step would be to consult with TMTC.
    • Next Graduate Conference is at EMU; next MHEFC is at Bluffton.
  • Questions were raised on the future of the MHEFC in light of constrained resources and the fracturing of the US and Canadian dominations.
    • Formerly MEA was the driver of the conference and Marpeck joined as a sponsor. MEA has backed off considerably over the years to virtually no participation at all.
    • Consequent questions:
      • Should the Marpeck Deans keep/assume “ownership” of the Conference?
      • Should the Marpeck Deans appeal to the newly formed Mennonite Higher Education Association (MHEA) for assumption of leadership for the Conference or for its assistance to the Marpeck Deans in conducting the Conference? (Note: See action below on memo to MHEA)
  • One of the goals of the MHEFC has been to orient new faculty members into Mennonite Higher Education. This purpose still seems available.
  • Fred moved the group back to the original discussion on review of proposal guidelines.

Review of Proposal Guidelines, continued

  • Concerning the words “cooperation” and “attendance” in the grant proposal “review criteria”
    • In the first sentence, change the word “cooperation” to “collaboration.”
    • Add the following parenthetical phrase behind the word “attendance”: (face-to-face and virtual).
  • Change the date at the end of the application document to June 4, 2018.

Marpeck Deans Membership

  • Two schools have both a provost and an academic dean—EMU and Goshen. Are the deans comfortable with both people being members of the group?
  • Goshen: Going forward, the dean, who is the CAO, will represent the College. The provost, who is not the CAO, will cover the meeting if the dean cannot make it.
  • EMU: Provost Fred Kniss is the CAO. He and the dean, Deirdre Smeltzer, historically have both participated.
  • We will continue to function as we have.

Collaborative Opportunities for the Future

  • Back office cooperation, e.g., Human Resources, registrars
  • Diversity issues
    • For example, with hiring
    • Idea: Sponsor a conference for faculty members of color from our various campuses.
      • They could help us to identify and address structural issues.
      • They also could help us to identify and address teaching and learning issues.
  • Cooperative Programs
    • Sociology and MBA are existing examples—they employ a synchronous online delivery mode.
    • Caution: Ongoing work requires significant time and energy.
    • Possible examples for the future: Foreign languages and biblical languages
    • Consortial arrangements—Brent Yoder and Bob Milliman shared their experience with Kansas’s independent schools and the College Consortium. (potential model for cooperation between the Marpeck institutions)

Budget Report

  • A question arose on the identity of the activities funded prior to 2008.
  • Research task for liaison, Bob Milliman
    • The origin date of the Marpeck Deans
    • The projects funded prior to 2008
    • The governance relationship between the Marpeck Deans and the Faculty Conference
  • Anabaptist Mennonite Scholars Network (AMSN)—Marlene Epp raised this topic
    • This website-based network was reactivated, and notices were sent out notifying people on the mailing list to this reactivation. However, no deans, but perhaps Jonathan Dueck, recall receiving a notice.
    • In the future, the membership fee will be eliminated. So, about $1,000 per year is needed to maintain the site.
    • Questions: Should the AMSN continue? Is there a champion to keep it going? Would the Marpeck Deans be interested in helping with funding?
  • Travel courses
    • Do we need MOUs between our schools to establish student exchanges for these courses?
    • Or, perhaps we should simply advertise these courses to students from the various Marpeck schools. These students, then, could take the courses as special students and transfer the credits to their primary schools of residence.

Mennonite Higher Education Association (MHEA)

  • Do we need to alert MHEA about the following items discussed at today’s meeting?
    • Sponsorship/ownership of the MHEFC
    • Possible advantage to collaborating on back-office staff efforts
    • Joint efforts at facilitating the hiring of new employees, especially for reaching, attracting, and hiring from diverse audiences
  • Conclusion: An informative memo will be drafted for consideration by the deans to send to the members of MHEA. Task: Fred Kniss will talk with Deirdre Smeltzer about working on this process through email.

Marpeck Deans Mission and Objectives

  • It would be helpful to clarify the mission of the Marpeck Deans.
  • Goal: A mission statement and explanation of the policies and procedures followed by the Marpeck Deans, and based on founding documents and current practices
    • Such a statement should include current functions such as holding regular face-to-face and email meetings, in order to consider and award grant applications, etc.
    • It could also include expansive functions, such as joint efforts at recruiting faculty and being an advocate for the Mennonite Higher Education Association.
  • Task: Marpeck liaison, Bob Milliman, will draft a statement for consideration at the next meeting of all the Marpeck Deans scheduled to be held in conjunction with CIC in November 2019.