FSPA begins compensation project as it joins the Fight for $15

By Sister Sue Ernster, Vice President & Treasurer/CFO, FSPA


In appreciation of our valued partners in mission and in support of the actions of ICCR, SGI and Raise the Wage Act of 2021, FSPA has partnered with Wipfli consultants to begin a compensation project that will ultimately raise our organization’s minimum wage to $15 in 2021. 

According to the Franciscan Sisters of Perpetual Adoration (FSPA) Leadership Team, “This isn’t just about economic justice. We recognize our partners in mission serving on staff are gold. We’re advocating for livable wages and we want it to start at home. We’re investing in our partners as they help us carry forward our mission.” The FSPA Merged HR Team note that all wages are evaluated annually, which will continue after the new minimum wage is in place.

FSPA stands with ICCR calling on the federal government to “implement a mandatory minimum wage of at least $15 per hour as a floor, with an eye towards establishing a living wage standard.” ICCR’s 300-plus faith and values-based institutional investors view the management of their investments as a catalyst for social change. In addition, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious Region 9, of which FSPA is a part of, is also advocating for living wages. This is in line with Pope Francis’ Easter message of solidarity with movements that support workers’ dignity through changing economic structures, including consideration of a universal basic wage.  

As our compensation project and advocacy for a living wage intersects with our commitment to unveil our white privilege. Throughout 2021, guided by our Dismantling FSPA Racism Team, we will work to raise awareness of our participation in systemic racism, analyze our congregation’s anti-racist vision and act authentically for racial equity.

FSPA recently took the lead in advocating for racial and economic justice by filing a shareholder resolution (see our exempt solicitation) with Walmart, calling for a higher starting wage — intersecting our compensation project and advocacy with our 2018 commitment to unveil white privilege. Walmart’s low starting wages are not aligned with the its professed values of respect for the individual and promoting healthy communities or its commitment to sustainability. Boosting wages for the lowest paid employees, which are disproportionately people of color, would advance Walmart’s stated commitment to racial justice. Remedying systemic racism provides everyone with tangible benefits. Wages are the most important element of employee compensation, according to Walmart Associates, and the negative effects of lower wages undermine their ability to serve the customer.

Our community is also growing our impact investing. Our 2020 Seeding a Legacy of Healing initiative will usher in a second round of seeding grants including the Apis & Heritage Capital Partners, whose mission  is to attack the racial wealth gap to restore dignity and status to the American Worker. A second investment in the Religious Communities Impact Fund will benefit the economically poor, especially women and children, concentrating on those who are unserved or poorly served through traditional financial sources.

As Pope Francis says in Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel), “The dignity of each human person and the pursuit of the common good are concerns which ought to shape all economic policies” (#203). The dignity of each person can be recognized through fair wages.

Webinar: Proxy Voting

On April 16th, SGI’s quarterly member webinar examined how the engagement season will be shaped by the pandemic and racial justice issues. We are grateful that Michael Passoff of Proxy Impact and Meredith Miller of the UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust joined us to enrich our conversation. We had some great interaction in the question and answer period, and, if a member missed it, please, email a staff member for a link to the recording.

Every year, billions of shares are voted at more than 3,000 shareholder meetings of public companies. “Proxy plumbing” is an informal name for the system by which proxy materials land in shareholders’ mailboxes each year. The name is apt. Today’s proxy plumbing is confusing, inefficient and expensive, much like some interconnected jumble of water pipes, joints and faucets. Michael and Meredith helped give us a clearer understanding of how shareholders can better navigate the maze.

Again, we are very grateful for the presence of Michael and Meredith in this webinar, for their commitment to this work, and their generosity in sharing their wisdom and experience with us. As always, we welcome your feedback via a confidential evaluation found here. Slides are available here.

SGI Joins Business Leaders In Calling For Aggressive Climate Targets

By Frank Sherman

President Biden will host 40 world leaders next week in a virtual Leaders Summit on Climate to galvanize support to tackle climate change. Having rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement on his first day in office, Biden wants to retake global leadership of this existential issue to underscore the urgency and economic benefits of stronger climate action.

Before the Leaders Summit, the Biden Administration will announce a new U.S. Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), an emissions reduction target for 2030. Upon signing the Paris Agreement in 2015, each of the 190 participating countries submitted their initial NDC. President Obama pledged to cut U.S. emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025. We are currently less than halfway to our original goal. Under Paris, countries are expected to submit updated commitments every five years.

Today, the We Mean Business Coalition announced that 310 businesses and investors, including Google, McDonalds, Walmart, CalSTRS……and Seventh Generation Interfaith, have signed an open letter to President Biden indicating our support for nearly doubling the emission reduction targets set by the Obama administration. This is consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) conclusion that, to have any chance of limiting temperature rise to 1.5˚C, global emissions must fall at least 50 percent by 2030. Corporate executives called the 50% reduction target “ambitious and attainable.”

For SGI, the decision to sign is fairly straight-forward. The COVID-19 pandemic and racial justice concerns may have overshadowed the climate crisis in the news much of last year, but the climate crisis will continue its march as the 21st century’s most dangerous and intractable threat. Hence, SGI members continue to engage companies to address the risks and opportunities of the warming planet.

Business leaders’ decision to break with Republicans in the post-Trump era follows similar moves on voting rights and racial justice. They risk further alienating Republicans by pressing Biden to aggressively combat climate change. But they also recognize the risks and the benefits posed by the climate crisis. In a counter argument to the fossil fuel narrative that climate action will cost jobs and raise energy costs, Patrick Flynn, vice president of sustainability for Salesforce, which signed on to the letter, said he hopes businesses will lobby Congress to support the Biden administration’s target. “We know it will create millions of jobs, we know it’s a good thing for the economy, and we know if we do it right we can do it in a way that leaves no one behind” (NYT, April 13, 2021).

These are historic times. When your grandchildren ask you someday in the future… “where were you when these decisions were being made?,” you’ll be able to tell them that you were on the right side of history.

Socially Responsible Investing requires effort

Tariq Fancy, BlackRock’s former chief investment officer for sustainable investing, made a startling confession in a recent USA Today editorial:

In essence, Wall Street is greenwashing the economic system and, in the process, creating a deadly distraction. I should know; I was at the heart of it.

Fancy went on: “In truth, sustainable investing boils down to little more than marketing hype, PR spin and disingenuous promises from the investment community.”

It’s quite an indictment from a significant voice in the ESG sector, but, based on my personal experience working for Seventh Generation Interfaith for the past several years, I do not believe that it conveys the whole truth of the matter.

Yes, there are asset management firms that over-hype their ESG product. They slap an ESG label on a fund that screens out certain sectors and perhaps speak to a few companies about their climate actions and sell it at a higher price than non-ESG products. A recent Wall Street Journal article reported 43% higher fees for ESG products in one class of assets. Visit a grocery store, and a higher-priced item with a “Naturally Raised” or “Fresh” label may attract more consumers, even if neither quality is in any measurable sense true. The old Latin adage holds: Caveat Emptor! Buyer beware!

When we look under the hood, so to speak, at many ESG funds, there are reasons to be concerned.

Even as investors demand ESG investments, those funds labeled ESG may not always reflect investor preferences in their proxy voting. Last month, a study from Robeco Asset Management and the Erasmus University of Rotterdam School investigated a decade of proxy voting data, and concluded that large, passive asset managers vote the least in favor of ESG proposals. Further, PRI signatories in the U.S. did not even vote their proxies as well as other U.S. firms that did not describe themselves with an ESG label. Fiona Reynolds, CEO at PRI, recently responded to the report with a commitment to take action. Reynolds went on to give an unusual warning: “being a PRI signatory should not be the only due diligence test for investors.” 

Asset owners who rely on negative screens and “ESG” funds can be misled. Vincent Deluard of StoneX authored a recent report entitled “The ESG Bubble: Saving the Planet and Destroying Societies.” Deluard points to blind spots in customary ESG screens. He notes, “companies with a high ESG rating pay a much lower tax rate than their less virtuous peers.” As well, he observed that “ESG funds are biased against humans: the 15 most highly-rated companies employ just 1.9 million workers, versus 5.1 million for the 15 worst-rated ones.” He concludes: “By channeling more money towards these (already wealthy) companies, ESG funds are unconsciously worsening the social and political crisis associated with automation, inequality, and monopolistic concentration.”

While Deluard’s study can cause suspicion of all ESG products, there are hopeful signs on the horizon. Last week, acting SEC chair Allison Herren Lee spoke to the proxy voting issue, saying, “We know investors are demanding ESG investment strategies and opportunities, but funds may not always reflect those investor preferences in their voting” and suggested that the SEC may need to take action on proxy voting disclosure. Further, Gary Gensler, the nominee to lead the Security and Exchange Commission, has indicated that he favors greater ESG disclosures, and the SEC as a whole is making ESG a priority. Most importantly, there are firms that do the hard work. For an asset owner, asking good questions of an asset manager can help discern if the firm is committed to doing this work. [We will soon have a blog post that examines some good questions to ask.] 

The faith community, with ICCR leading the way, has pioneered socially responsible investing for fifty years. Many asset managers and advisors who are ICCR members are not doing the greenwashing that Mr. Fancy called out. And SGI members recognize their fiduciary responsibility and power of ownership to change the system for the better. SGI members create value by improving the conduct of portfolio companies and, at the same time, create real world impact for people and planet.

Investor Engagement by a Novice

By Judy Sinnwell, OSF Dubuque

A year after retiring to Mount St. Francis in July 2015, the president of our congregation asked if I would facilitate the formation of what came to be the Sisters of St. Francis-Dubuque SRI Working Group. My previous ministry experience was elementary education-administration, adult formation, licensed health practitioner and after-school tutoring in the rural south. Saying ‘yes’ acknowledged that the topic would be interesting and that the ‘working’ part of the label would have me personally engaged in a significantly new arena addressing life’s meaning and purpose.

And so it has! Especially in recent years, as active ownership has effectively increased its voice and influence in the investment arena. Belonging to a faith- and values-based investor coalition, Seventh Generation Interfaith based in Milwaukee, provided education, professional resources, and mentoring in this important work, which for the Dubuque Franciscans, is a way of keeping our congregational mission alive.

Sr. Judy Sinnwell, OSF

One thing I became aware of in those first years was the annual general meeting, the AGM, which a company has for shareholders to weigh in on important company matters. Being a co-owner enabled me to file a shareholder resolution, challenging the company to make improvements in its governance, environmental and social practices. It seemed to be the right thing to do when we had the chance; but at times, it felt a bit intimidating. Recently, that was my experience as a co-filer on a resolution presented at the Tyson Food Inc. annual meeting.

The resolution asked for human rights due diligence in Tyson’s meat packing sites across the country. Iowa has several Tyson sites; one is in Waterloo, where Rath Packing Co. once had a positive reputation and provided a level of economic mobility for Blacks who migrated from the South until it was shut down in 1985. Learning about workers’ conditions during the COVID pandemic in Tyson’s Waterloo plant, where our congregation provided staff at two elementary and a central high school, became a concern and made this an obvious focus of our shareholder action.

When the resolution was made public and the AGM date was nearing, Investor Advocacy for Social Justice (a sister coalition to SGI) began to build awareness among the press and all shareholders who would have a proxy vote on the proposal during the meeting. Reporters from the Des Moines Register and Reuters contacted me for comment, specifically interested in the fact that ‘nuns’ were engaged with a national company; and the Iowa connection because of the negative news that had been previously reported about the Iowa Tyson site and COVID. Their news coverage educated readers about the broad impact of shareholder action. Each request also made me very aware that this experience was not something I anticipated when I agreed to facilitate a group investment effort five years previous!

Was it worth it? Definitely! Yes! Taking the chance to be the voice for marginalized sisters and brothers had to be done. It’s who we are as Dubuque Franciscans. And it stretched me. The support of faith-based and value-based organizations like SGI and IASJ made this possible as an investor. It’s what the world needs right now as one way to reclaim the commitment to the common good and the dignity of the individual person in the economic arena.

Essential Workers: COVID-19 and Racial Equity

On February 19th, SGI’s quarterly member webinar examined how the engagement season will be shaped by the pandemic and racial justice issues. We are grateful that Corey Klemmer of Domini Impact Investments and Hanna Lucal of Open MIC joined us to enrich our conversation. We had some great interaction in the question and answer period, and we added some resources that were shared in the webinar’s chat feature to a final slide in the slide deck.

At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, many Americans were shocked at the sight of empty shelves in stores as global supply chains sputtered to keep up with the demand for a variety of products. The fragility of these supply chains has suddenly become evident to a lot of Americans who expect them to always operate seamlessly. Global supply chains connect people worldwide, from garment workers in Bangladesh to consumers in the United States. They are built to be ruthlessly efficient, manufacturing and delivering goods exactly when and where they are needed. The ability to move quickly and seamlessly across the globe also helps companies find cheaper labor or other opportunities to make products more cheaply. While this system may be good for corporate owners and supply chain managers, it takes a toll on workers. In the face of COVID-19, poultry workers literally put their life on the line every time they punch in to work. The opportunity of 2021 is to place worker dignity at the center of supply chain transformation plans.

The Black Lives Matter movement has also created an unprecedented urgency for a more genuinely diverse and inclusive workforce. The COVID-19 pandemic has inflicted devastating effects on the U.S. economy, with job losses, especially concentrated among women, minorities, and low-wage workers. It illustrates the systemic racism that lives in our financial institutions. Corporations are making statements in support of Black Lives Matter, but statements are easy. Ensuring that People of Color are hired, paid, promoted, and retained equitably is less so. We cannot allow the corporate response to be merely words. Together, we can compel action.

Again, we are very grateful for the presence of Corey and Hannah in this webinar, for their commitment to this work, and their generosity in sharing their wisdom and experience with us. As always, we welcome your feedback via a confidential evaluation found here. Slides are available here.

Shareholder Resolution Timeline

We often get questions on deadlines associated with the shareholder resolution process. Because SEC rules can be difficult to read, I have outlined the Shareholder Resolution Timeline. This won’t answer all the questions, but will hopefully make the process a little more digestible.

When companies do not engage with their shareholders on salient ESG issues, or they make insufficient progress, shareholders can resort to filing a resolution to be included in the company’s proxy statement and to be voted on at the company’s next annual general meeting (AGM). While the SEC approved several changes to the 14a(8) shareholder resolution process in the final months of the Trump administration, the timeline did not change. 

According to the SEC, a proposal “must be received at the company’s principal executive offices not less than 120 calendar days before the release date of the previous year’s annual meeting proxy statement. Both the release date and the deadline for receiving rule 14a-8 proposals for the next annual meeting should be identified in that proxy statement.” Thankfully, a company’s proxy statement is required to state the deadline for resolution submissions for the following year.

After a proposal is filed, the company has 14 days to ask the proponent to fix any procedural requirements (e.g. proof of ownership, word count) if they are not met. The proponent then has 14 days to resolve those issues. If the proponent does not respond or resolve the issues, the company can appeal to the SEC to exclude the proposal. The company cannot omit the resolution without giving the proponent a chance to resolve the issues, or without an appeal to the SEC.

The company has up to 80 days before its proxy is printed to challenge the proposal via a no-action request to the SEC. The company is required to provide a copy of the no-action submission to the proponents and will be published on the SEC website. After a company files a no-action request, such as substantial implementation or micro management (full list for potential exclusion, here), the proponent can appeal this challenge to the SEC. The SEC’s timeline on this decision is usually driven by the company’s proxy printing; however, the SEC does not have to wait for the proponent’s appeal, and can make a decision at any time. Because of this, it is recommended that the proponent inform the SEC on their plans to respond, and submit their appeal to the SEC as soon as possible, generally within 30 days of receiving the no-action.The SEC no longer has to respond to the company’s no-action request in writing, but rather can post their advice to their website on whether the proposal can be omitted from the company’s proxy. 

Oftentimes after a no-action request is submitted by the company, the proponents decide to withdraw the proposal, usually after they reach a mutual agreement with the company. While the proponent can withdraw their proposal any time up until the day of the shareholder meeting, we generally try to withdraw before the company’s proxy statement is printed. It is sometimes preferable to withdraw the proposal before the SEC sides with the company allowing it to omit the proposal, if the company’s no action arguments are compelling.

If the proponent does not withdraw the proposal, and the SEC does not rule in favor of the company to omit it from the proxy statement, the company has to send a management statement to the proponent. The statement, typically referred to as the company’s opposition statement, must be sent at least 30 days before the proxy is printed, recommending shareholders vote either for or against the shareholder proposal. If the statement of opposition makes any arguments that are false or misleading, the proponent can ask the company to make the appropriate changes. If the company makes any flagrant errors, the proponent can write to the SEC to challenge the statement, though the SEC does not have to respond to this challenge.

In preparation of the annual general meeting (AGM), the proponent has a few opportunities to “build the vote” by informing other shareholders why they should vote in favor of the proposal. 

  • The proponent can write and publish a Proxy Memo, detailing more information on why they filed the resolution, and why voting for the resolution is necessary. This memo is usually published on the proponent’s website and distributed to other shareholders through partner organizations.
  • The proponent can also file an Exempt Solicitation. Similar to a proxy memo, it expands on the proposal and argues why other shareholders should vote in favor of the proposal. This document must be reformatted by a third party to be uploaded to the SEC Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR). It is then distributed to all subscribers to SEC filings for that company and is publicly available. This generally reaches more shareholders, and asset management firms. 

Leading up to the AGM, to continue to “build the vote,” proponents can also reach out to proxy service companies or firms that prepare company reports and provide proxy voting service on behalf of shareholders. The proponent can also reach out to large asset managers to inform them of their arguments for voting in favor of the resolution, and can promote their proposal through the media to build awareness and support.

After the proposal is voted on at the AGM, the company is required to publish the results of the vote, and other matters discussed, in an 8-K SEC filing within 4 days of the AGM. These filings can be found on the company’s website.

The timeline can be complicated, so you may want to refer to the table below. 

Summarized Timeline: 

120 Days from release date of previous years company proxyDeadline to submit shareholder proposal
14 Days (after submission)Company exclusion based on eligibility or requirements
14 Days (after exclusion) Proponent can resubmit proposal fixing the issues 
80 Days (before proxy is printed) Company challenge to SEC with a no-action request 
ASAP (after No Action request)Proponent to challenge or appeal the no-action request 
Any Time after No Action requestSEC makes a decision on no-action request 
Any Time before AGMShareholder can withdraw proposal 
30 Days before proxy is printed Company issues Management Statement recommending how to vote on the proposal, to be printed in the proxy 
Any Time (usually 6 weeks) before AGMProponent published or files Proxy Memo / Exempt Solicitation 
~30 days before AGMProponent “builds vote” with Proxy Service companies 
4 days after AGMCompany files 8-K with proposal vote results 

See the SEC Bulletin with more information here. 

Writing letters is easy; Will BlackRock act on it?

Today, BlackRock’s Larry Fink issued his 2021 letter to CEOs. As usual, the New York Times devoted significant coverage to it. Again, we at SGI are heartened by Fink’s words. I’ll call your attention to this nugget near the letter’s conclusion:

Questions of racial justice, economic inequality, or community engagement are often classed as an “S” issue in ESG conversations. But it is misguided to draw such stark lines between these categories. For example, climate change is already having a disproportionate impact on low-income communities around the world – is that an E or an S issue? What matters is less the category we place these questions in, but the information we have to understand them and how they interact with each other. Improved data and disclosures will help us better understand the deep interdependence between environmental and social issues.

I loved this line: “And now, business leaders and boards will need to show great courage and commitment to their stakeholders.”

At the same time, I am reminded of the “Peanuts” comic. Time and again, Lucy tells Charlie Brown that she will hold a football while he runs up to kick it. Initially, Charlie Brown usually refuses to kick it, not trusting Lucy. Then, Lucy says something to persuade Charlie Brown to trust her. Charlie Brown runs up to kick the ball, but at the very last moment before he can kick it, Lucy removes the ball. As a consequence, Charlie Brown flies into the air, falls down on his back, and hurts himself.

We’ve seen these letters each year from Fink, and we have written about our reactions to them before. Nonetheless, when it comes to voting their proxies, BlackRock, like Lucy, yanks the ball away (See: BlackRock voted against climate resolutions over 80% of the time in 2020). To be honest, I hope that I am wrong. I pray for an abundance of “great courage and commitment.” Time will tell if 2021 will be any different.

COVID-19 and Racial Justice: Pharmacy Deserts

We know that our healthcare system does not work well for those who are poor. Studies report that socioeconomic disparities in health care are significantly worse in the U.S. than in other wealthy countries. These disparities have daily real-world implications. Over the last ten months, we’ve seen how those who are poor are more likely to be infected with COVID-19 and, ultimately, to die from it, especially people of color.

The pharmaceutical industry deserves praise for producing safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines so quickly. However, drugs don’t work if people can’t afford them. Those pharma companies have been pursuing monopolistic deals with the fruits of taxpayer-funded innovation, rather than volunteering to share their know-how to get those vaccines to everyone, everywhere, at the lowest cost possible and as quickly as possible. This is why SGI members joined other investors in asking pharma companies to take into account public financial support for development and manufacture of vaccines or therapeutics for COVID-19 when making decisions on access and prices.

Similar to the term “food deserts,” research has also disclosed a phenomena of “pharmacy deserts” in the journal Health Affairs. Frankly, it is foreign to my experience. I live within ten blocks of four pharmacies: a CVS, two Walgreens, and an independent pharmacy. Meanwhile, neighborhoods in cities like Chicago increasingly are places where people are unable to fill medical prescriptions locally because their drugstores have closed or will not accept Medicaid. A pharmacy desert is the result of basic economics: because pharmacies get the lowest reimbursements for filling Medicaid prescriptions, companies are more likely to close stores in low-income, minority neighborhoods and open them in wealthy ones.

According to new research published this month in the Journal of the American Medical Association, racial disparities in mortality are not improving despite an increasing awareness of the problem and a focus on social determinants of health. Apart from COVID-19, Black mortality remains far higher than white mortality in America’s 30 largest cities. Add in COVID-19, and Axios reports that, in the U.S., 22,000 Black and Latino Americans would still be alive today if their coronavirus mortality rates were the same as white people.

Systemic racism has found its way into vaccine distribution as well. To address these concerns, Dallas County, Texas aimed to prioritize COVID-19 vaccine doses to “the county’s most vulnerable ZIP codes, primarily in communities of color.” The plan drew the ire of state officials who threatened to cut off the county’s vaccine supply, and county officials quickly retreated. In Dallas, as in other major Texas cities, distribution sites are more commonly located in white neighborhoods, and early data showed that Dallas County had distributed most of its shots to residents of whiter, wealthier neighborhoods.  Black and brown people who are disproportionately affected by the coronavirus are also least likely to get vaccinated. There are lots of reasons why, but access to the internet to sign up for shots, and access to pharmacies and hospitals to receive the shots, are significant issues.

To beat this virus as quickly as possible, the Biden administration, state and local governments, and corporations must work collaboratively to prioritize the distribution of the vaccine to those communities most at-risk, especially people of color. 

SGI Board Elects Officers for 2021

SGI  is pleased to announce the election of board officers for the year 2021. These include:

  • President: Cindy Bohlen, Riverwater Partners
  • Treasurer: Peg Groth, Sisters of the Sorrowful Mother International Finance, Inc.
  • Secretary: Ann Roberts, Dana Investment Advisors

Both Peg and Ann are continuing in their positions as officers. Cindy Bohlen, Chief Mindfulness Officer at Riverwater Partners, leads the firm’s sustainability practice and does primary research for the health care and technology sectors. Cindy has prior research experience at Robert W. Baird and M&I Investment Management. She added a sustainability lens to her investment process while working for another private firm and for a local foundation. Cindy earned a B.B.A. in Finance and a B.A. in Spanish from the University of Wisconsin – Madison. In addition, she is a CFA® charterholder. Cindy joined SGI’s board this year.

The outgoing board president is Dan Tretow, Director of Financial Services in the International Office,  School Sisters of St. Francis. Dan, who served as board president from 2018 through 2020 remains on the SGI board and will participate in the development committee.

Frank Sherman, executive director of SGI, said, “I congratulate Cindy on her election as president of the SGI Board of Directors.  Her commitment to ESG issues and her professional experience are great assets to SGI.  We value her leadership at SGI and know that she will help guide us in our work for people and planet.”

The entire team at SGI thanks Dan for his service as president. Under his leadership, we have grown in members, hired staff, expanded our corporate engagements, and commenced our annual conference. We are grateful for Dan’s generous service to our organization since the 1980s and to the School Sisters of St Francis, one of our founding members.

The SGI board is elected by SGI members in staggered three-year terms. Board members elected in the October 11th member meeting were: Caroline Boden (Mercy Investment Services), Ed Fitzpatrick (The Fitzpatrick Group, Wells Fargo), Ann Roberts (Dana Investment Advisors), and Sr. Carmen Schnyder  (Sisters of the Precious Blood). The board officers are elected by the board, as per the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. To learn more about SGI’s board, click here