In March of this year, then RIPE Bill Boyd wrote to Brian
Knowles on his concerns related to the Global Networking
Program. His questions are valid and need to be addressed by the
committee. It may be that his letter is perhaps a combination of
staff views, as well)
I have taken the liberty of expressing some opinions on these
issues and there will be many others. I hope these are helpful
as having come from a person who has observed the evolution of
the Fellowship Groups into this category of “Action” Groups as
approved by the 2005 Board. The questions and answers both need
be objective and tolerant of changing times in the whole field
of international development and the role that Rotary has the
potential of playing in it.
The new Rotary program is an incremental step in change
management. I think we would all agree that we need not be
afraid of change but not change for the sake only of change..
The meeting of this RAGS Committee is perhaps the most important
meeting of all of the many committees that will convene on
related topics: the Board, the Vision Group, Strategic Planning
Committees etc. You, the members, have it in your hands to make
a strong recommendation to the Board on a service delivery model
within Rotary that will impact the way we enhance our
International Fellowship and Service for the next one hundred
years.
Paul Harris said:
"As movements grow older, they become institutionalized.
Traditions
hampers the exercise of reason... Unworthy and irrational
features are
permitted to continue merely because they have always been. No
one cares to
disturb the precedent even though it may be manifest that its
reason, if
there ever was one, no longer exists. The spirit becomes lost in
the letter of the law."
Sincerely,
JJE
Letter to the Chairman of the RAGs Committee from
President-Elect Bill Boyd:
(an attempt to provide some answers follow in red ink)
9 March2006
Brian H. Knowles
Past Director, Rotary International
17 Bayview St.
Runaway Bay, Qld.,
Australia 4216
Dear Brian:
I have a concern that the potential growth of Rotary Action
Groups (RAGs) may have a
serious impact on Board authority and existing programs and I
have some questions for
the Rotary Action Groups Committee. As chairman, I wanted you to
know of my
concerns.
The opening question by Bill appears to be a reasonable position
from which to advance a negative opinion of what a RAG is and
more importantly, how a RAG is governed under the existing Code
of policy provisions. The fact that these are questions are
written under the signature of the President should not preclude
that possibility that many of them are expressions of staff held
views. However, they should be treated positively and as
legitimate concerns.
• I am convinced that many of Bill’s comments in this letter
reflect the staff concerns that were expressed before the Board
recognized this new program policy area – I do not know how much
experience Bill has had with either Fellowship Groups or
International Development work being done by the existing RAGS.
The question suggests a bias toward the value of RAGS and this
form of WCS delivery.
• While the many observations that have been made on the new
Global Networking Program have been overwhelmingly positive, I
do know that there is a staff bias which is in the nature of a
sincere desire to "protect" the "corporate RI".
• This is basically a resistance to "change" as compared to an
attitude to frame a policy environment that encourages Rotarians
in what they do best - service - and still keep the interests of
RI paramount!
• In the final analysis, we have to trust Rotarians who are
performing service in this structure just as we do within the
club structure. So long as their activities are circumscribed by
a set of rules (Code of Policies), and RI is separated from them
(to the same extent that the Polio Plus program is segregated,
RI will be protected
• The kiss of death for RAGs would be a referral of the concept
to the Council on Legislation. The policy framework should be
governed by Board policy. Perhaps after the policy has allowed
the RAGs to mature and thus be better defined in a
constitutional framework, the COL would be the place to address
specific program issues.
You will receive a board document presented by the General
Secretary which gives
background on the current status of RAGs.
• I hope there will be an objective and detailed and balanced
staff advanced memorandum.
These came about because the existing program of Fellowships,
designed for groups of Rotarians with recreational or vocational
interests became the vehicle for groups with causes or specific
program interests. The rules governing fellowships were not
appropriate for these groups, usually driven by a passion, and
the Board decided to establish the new category of RAG's.
This is not a balanced statement! And, is to some degree,
misleading. The first Ad Hoc Board Committee (2005) recommended
the division between “activity” groups and fellowship groups. It
was chaired by David Morgan and David Roper was its advisor.
• This decision by the Board came after the recognition that
these “activity” groups are playing a major role in WCS and the
public image of Rotary through useful service and fellowship
activities are consistent with the Object of Rotary.
• The decision was taken only after 18 months of Board
deliberation which included the presidentially appointed Ad Hoc
Committee (as noted above) to consider the concept and a special
Board Committee that reviewed the separation in much detail.
• Two standing Committees of the Board recommended the action
(“Administration” – from a legal point of view; and, “Program”,
from a program point of view. The decision of the Board was
unanimous with the President not voting.
• It should be noted here that few people in positions of
authority at the Board level or at the committee level have much
personal experience with Fellowship groups and therefore do not
fully appreciate the tremendous contribution they have made to
Rotary over many years (with virtually no negative consequences)
• “Passion” is not a dirty word. Indeed, it is what has driven
virtually every positive change that Rotary has migrated through
over the past 100 years!
These have given enthusiastic Rotarians with a cause the
opportunity to promote their
interest
• This is a misleading remark. It is not “their” cause” It is a
cause in which they have a personal interest or expertise – and
one that cannot be satisfied exclusively within the confines of
the local club. It is an individual Rotarian’s way of
contributing to world community service in collaboration with
others of similar interest.
• They are not new causes – they are “causes” that are set out
for the most part in Rotary’s “Menu of Service Opportunities”,
traditional Rotary WCS projects and programs; the Strategic Plan
of Rotary; or, the Millennium goals.
• The “opportunity to promote” is quite simply, a way for
individuals to perform service in our service organization using
a new and improved vehicle for delivery.
• S 43.020 states that the group is a “voluntary association of
Rotarians who unite themselves for the purpose of conducting
international service projects that advance the Object of
rotary”. The Board agreed in 2005 that this was sufficient
“guidance” for a responsible Rotary entity – just as it is for
Clubs
in a vehicle that carries the name of Rotarians, but which
operates with minimal
Board control.
• The whole idea of the Code of Policies is to do just that!
• S. 43.020.2 specifically states that RAG and its governing
document must be consistent with RI policy – the Board thought
this was sufficiently clear?
• “All have to be approved by the Board” !!!
• The C. of P. can be used (or twigged where necessary) for this
purpose. But it should not be used to restrict to such an extent
that the programs of the RAGs are made impotent (unless another
program vehicle is created to fill the void)
• The control mechanisms can also be found in the Strategic Plan
process
• A concern that is often repeated is that RAGs hold out as
representing Rotary International. I do not believe this to be
the case! A Chair or member of the RAG cannot represent Rotary
International. I do not believe that any has done that! I have
read some RAG documents and find them to consistently show the
group as Rotarians For Fighting AIDS -a Rotarian Action Group /
or land mines etc and that it “consists of a group of
like-minded Rotarians from over 60 countries that have a concern
about orphans, etc., etc." Since Rotary International does not
have a strategy in place to collectively address a particular
cause (i.e. Polio), these special interest groups have formed
pursuant to RI policy and carry on work independently of the
international organization but work through individual Rotarians
and Rotary Clubs.
The RAG's elect their own officers, who have only the
requirement to be "active
Rotarians". The length of tenure is decided by their own bylaws.
One, as an example,
has a two year term for their President,
• This is arguably a very good thing – continuity and a viable
democratic process for leadership selection will weed out those
who are ineffective or abusing the office)
• Governance of Rotary clubs through the new models systems has
(and is demonstrating) that the way “we have always done it” is
not necessarily the way to sustain our organization. A RAG
allows for these differences and though those that have been
active with continuity of leadership and even professional staff
that are in place for multi-year terms, there is the potential
for better long-term multi-year sustainable results!
who may serve up to three terms.
• Rotary in my view should not try to micro-manage this process
but if a comfort level is necessary, the Code could be twigged
to provide a uniform governance structure that addresses this
issue
• A range of governance models might be developed so that the
staff feels comfort that is has the framework for oversight but
that the organization is encouraged to develop the most
effective model of leadership transfusion that fits their
objectives
• I think it might just be the fear at the present time that
“RI” does not know what the RAGs and Fellowship groups are doing
so have a latent fear that they might be doing something that
could prejudice RI. This fear is largely unfounded.
The nominating committee for their officers is appointed by
their President. Provided these officers are active Rotarians,
the RI Board has no ability to remove them even if there are
issues of breaking RI policies, personal taint or unsatisfactory
performance.
• These issues can all be dealt with by the Code if thought
necessary.
• This situation is covered by s. 43.020.2. Termination can be
ordered pursuant to s. 43.020.4
• A standard “criteria” could be developed as I suggested a year
ago to then RIPE Stenhammar and the G/S (see my email of July
15, 2006)
• Do we not trust our clubs and districts to chose our leaders?
Why should this be different from other Rotary entities??
• Rotarians are chosen because of their business and integrity
reputations. That is the premise and context (just like in
clubs) upon which any new policy in this area should be
attempted
There would appear to be no way for the RI Board or the General
Secretary to address
partnerships formed with undesirable organizations or
individuals provided that the
amount of each transaction is less than $25.000.
• We don’t require this of clubs – RAGs should be subject to the
same trust and under the same direction
• This situation is governed by s. 43.020.4 (i.e if the
partnership breaks a RAG policy or is inconsistent with the
cooperative relationship policy, prohibitions against religious
or political involvement etc.) and 43.020.12 (statement of
disassociation from RI requirement) , then they should be
sanctioned with the possibility of forfeiture of recognition.
• This concern appears to come from those who want, for good
reason, to separate the activities of the “corporate RI” from
the activities of clubs, districts and “Rotary Entities”. This
is a valid concern and is addressed in several places in the
Code. In this context the separation requirements are found in
s. 43.020.11
• The limitation is actually covered in s 43.020.15 of the Code.
If this needs to be tightened to allow for a “re-action time” by
RI (if thought necessary), it could be amended by providing that
the Board (G/S acting on its behalf) could require details of
the plan, proposed cooperating entity and 3/p recipient of funds
so as to protect the Board against unsavory relationships. The
G/S would have to have a specific mandate from the Board to
apply a criteria that would be part of the defining criteria in
the approval process (as I suggested to the G/S and then RIPE
Stenhammar a year ago.)
• this is speculative and surely not consistent with what
motivates Rotarians to “do good in the world” )
• s. 43.020.15 deals with the conflict of interest and fund
raising issues in cooperative relationships
As these groups are basically independent but can use the term
Rotarian, what
expectations will outside bodies have of them, particularly if
they operate unethically or
inefficiently?
• The simple answer is “the same as any Rotary Club”
• Our current rules adequately cover this situation
• This seems to be a lightning rod question posed by a staff
member who covets control of all Rotarian Activity and does not
understand the basis upon which Rotarians are chosen to become
Rotarians or the deeply held conviction that we can “trust”
Rotarians as business and professional leaders. We have seen,
fortunately, very few exceptions to this but they get attention.
• the groups are as independent as the policy permits them to
be- just as Clubs are autonomous, they must conform to policies
set out in the constitutional documents and Code of Policies
How do they control their own members?
• The same way as Clubs do their members
We recently received an e-mail which told RI
that we have partnerships with Coca-Cola, Starbucks and Proctor
and Gamble.
• I find this hard to believe?? The committee might wish to see
a copy of the letter. From who did the email come Coca Cola??
What are the terms of the RI contract?? Who are the signatories?
How can RI be involved in a contract of which it knows nothing –
this seems impossible! If it is true, steps should be taken to
ensure compliance with the code.
• This is a misleading statement – it is the kind of statement I
heard from risk management people on staff and when examined
carefully, the concern turned out to be based on presumption and
speculation and not facts.
The Board has not approved any of these partnerships, and the
action of the RAG could
preclude the Board and or the Trustees from global partnerships
with these major
companies. Such partnerships should benefit the whole
organisation rather than one
specific group.
• Question – what does it mean: ---“whole organization”? If it
means Corporate RI, there is a serious disconnect from the view
that RI consists of Rotary Clubs and not the buracracy and Board
of Directors in Evanston
• RI and TRF are not in the business of creating global
partnerships. There is only one program (Polio Plus) that Rotary
will recognize as a global program so it is impossible for this
to happen at this time.
• There is not one dollar that has gone to a RAG from an outside
source that I am aware of that would have gone to corporate RI.
RI is simply not in this business! Neither is the Foundation.
With exception of public appeals from TRF for Polio, TRF is
supported by individual Rotarians and clubs – not global
partnerships (i.e we have never asked Coca Cola to give money to
the Foundation to support our GSE teams – nor would they likely
do this even if approached)!!
• There is a clear policy within Rotary that does not allow
partnerships to evolve other than on very specific terms and for
specific purposes with specific prohibitions (see s. 35.010 Code
of Policies).
• I cannot believe that a RAG entered into a contract with an
organization on behalf of Rotary International. Surely we would
have heard about this!!?
• The underlying theme here is that RI and the whole Rotary
world could benefit from these (indirectly) and in fact DOES
benefit because of the public relations enhancement, increased
membership, focused and effective WCS associated with Rotary.
Over recent years, the Board and President have appointed Task
Forces or Resource
Groups to promote the emphasis developed by the President.
• There has been much debate over the years about the President
doing this and most have varied in their approach. It has been
refreshing in the past 4 years to have had some consistency in
the “emphasis”
• It must be pointed out that these are generally NOT areas of
emphasis that have been arbitrarily dreamed up by Presidents.
They typically have simply emphasized one of more of the items
from the Menu of Service Opportunities and asked clubs to
particularly focus on these; i.e.
Environment - water management emphasis
Health concerns
Education and literacy
As Director, Horst Heiner Hellge recently opined:
“ --- it's not just the system of fellowships and RAG's, it's
the enormous unsolved problem of estabishing a new concept -
able to take load - for all these disordered international and
President-focussed functions like resource groups, task forces,
"coordinators" of all sorts, entities that are not in harmony
with each other and even less with district functions and the
authority of autonomous clubs and their by laws.”
• RAGs have the potential of continuing the emphasis in
meaningful and effective ways long after the year of a
particular President By building on the strengths generated by
the President focusing on the particular area in which the RAG
is working, world attention is focused on the service area. This
could be a very positive connection.
• It also emphasizes that RAGs are expected to work through the
Clubs and therefore, with the President’s support in his
emphasis, the ability of the Rotary world to do better service
by building greater expertise and capacity is enhanced.
• A major concerns is lack of continuity. Resource Groupls exist
only at the
pleasure of the President.
• They have no authority to support long-term initiatives:-
despite our
ability to generate much interest and enthusiasm Rotarians have
no
assurance of continued interest or support. Consequently they
are
unwilling to initiate truly significant programmes. They remain
short-term, project-focused with few exceptions
• People are appointed to resource groups who may have no
interest in
the subject but accept the invitation solely to raise their
political
profile in Rotary.
• Major NGOs and agencies e.g. Unicef, UNESCO, WaterAid, etc
look to
Rotary for leadership at the grass-roots level. At present it is
difficult for a resource to make any commitment except promising
to
communicate and encouraging. We risk becoming marginalised in
the major
humanitarian issues of the day.
•
These Resource Groups have their membership appointed from the
list of Rotarians submitted by Rotary senior leaders, and they
are answerable to the Board and President. Each year their
General Coordinator and Assistant Coordinator receive training
from RI, and are told of their mission. RAGs do not have those
constraints. Is there any future for Resource Groups?
This thoughtful question begs a thoughtful response and much
time dedicated to it by the committee.
Recognition of a Rotarian Action Group requires a very careful
policy and administrative framework. The Board, in June 2005
went a long way in articulation this. Some issues were
overlooked. Because I brought this program proposal to the Board
in the first place, I continued to provide input. Last August, I
made the suggestion to President Carl-Wilhelm and the G/S (based
on the materials we developed in Committee) as to how this
recognition process might unfold. Certainly, my Board
Administration Committee focused on this before making the
recommendation to the Programs Committee and to the Board. We
reviewed, in detail, the way in which this distinction between
the Concern for Health (now the Water, Health and Hunger
Concerns Resource Group) was mandated and how the RAGs would be
structured. Obviously, the Board was satisfied with it
This question is good also because it begs the distinction
between what RI is expected to do (i.e. in the language of the
Resource Group mandate: "This resource group will work to
increase awareness ---provide information -----etc.") This is
not the kind of mandate under which a RAG functions.
• Sometimes, if not mostly, there is no demand from clubs for
information from resource groups.
• Clubs are not enough engaged in WCS. RAGs are motivating and
mobilizing them. Resource Groups mostly wait until they are
asked by clubs but they are not! Clubs simply do not “connect”
with the Resource Groups and indeed I suspect that 98% of the
Rotary world does not even know they exist
• A Rotarian Action Group would not be expected to duplicate the
mandate of a Resource Group although it may well have similar
capacity in certain very focused ways (i.e developing
operational protocols for a health Fair, as compared to
informing Clubs that a Health Fair is a possible way of doing a
local health Community project)
• Information (if forthcoming at all) from a Resource Group to a
Club is not enough. Hardly anything will happen after the
information is given especially if the information is not based
on club driven experience.
• An Action group is required by its policy framework to work
through the clubs and districts - the Rotary network. Yes, an
Action Group may very well make use of information that comes
from the Resource Group but of more interest (subject to the
criteria used to recognize them), they would have a much higher
level of applied expertise and focus then what we have seen in
Resource Groups
• RAGs are made of up of volunteers who are highly dedicated and
engaged. They have a very restricted and focused mission and
mandate based on activity (“ACTION”). Would it not be useful to
have a district member for each Rotarian Action group??
• Resource Groups lack a detailed "job description" that
inspires and “leads” a member to actually “do anything”. Indeed,
there is evidence that the Board or President will be critical
if the Resource group actually does something! Witness, the
grief that was provided the World Community Service Committee
(Resource Group) in 2005 just because it wanted to "do
something" - i.e. host a meeting in Cairo! The committee and its
chairman was embarrassed and criticized for “actually doing
something” that would increase the ability of clubs to perform
quality world community service. Their report was not even
permitted to be recognized as anything but a local undertaking
even though dozen of countries were represented at the meeting!
The Board never officially received its report! The conference
was considered only as an “unofficial meeting”.
• It was perhaps this latter point that has prompted so many
Rotarians to create the many proliferating "cause related"
Rotarian based entities and ignore the Resource groups,
Committees and Task Forces as being ineffective and simply a way
to allow appointments to be made and names to appear in the OD
but not really expecting these groups to accomplish anything of
real value in the service and fellowship mandate called for in
the Object of Rotary
• On the last point – RAGS are definitely “answerable” to the
board (indeed far more so than Resource Committees) by the
provisions of s 40 of the Code of Policies.
• Resource Groups on the other hand are not responsible for
reporting to anyone and certainly not the Board. The Chair
historically has reported to the president but the reports do
not come to the Board and there does not seem to be any
mechanism built into their mandate to either receive
quantitative or qualitative reports that would report on their
yearly activities or their effectiveness. (sometimes, proactive
Chairs get their picture in the “Rotarian” with a story about
what some club or Rotary Group has accomplished but that is
quite different from having a policy framework that sets out a
specific mandate and a requirement to report to the Board as the
question implies. They should be applauded for this but it the
exception rather than the rule. While some Chairpersons are
hyper active and visible in some projects, there is little if
any connection between the mandate of the Resource Group itself
and the actual WCS being done.
• Certainly, it would be of value to have RAGs leadership get
training from RI (just as do the coordinators of Resource
Groups). I feel certain that the RAGs would endorse this
opportunity. The training would have to be well defined and
perhaps would focus on :
o Risk management vis a vis RI
o Official Marks policies
o RAG Code of Policy up-dates and training on “expectations”
o Training on the principals of effective “Results Based
Management” in International Development as already some
multi-district activities provide their club leaders
o Cooperative relationship policies
o TRF liaison on how RAGs can effectively work through the RIN
(Rotary International Network) in applying the “Rotary Model” in
their WCS
o Special rules related to RAG and multi-club applications for
matching grants and 3-H grants
o Etc.
Is there any point in a President having emphases if the RAGs
are operating
independently and supplant Resource Groups?
Yes, there is a future for Resource Groups – they are called
Rotarian Action Groups. In other words, why not consider the
possibility of a positive working relationship and recognition
of RAGs as a way in which a President can implement his own
priorities.
by appointing a liaison director or small liaison committee
made up of special Rotarians with specialized interest in the
activity of the RAG, to be the Presidential interface with the
activities of these groups. Governors could be trained to
understand the work of RAGs and appoint a district
representative to be the liaison with the cause specific RAGs
Think of the tremendous potential that these groups would have
if the President asked DG’s to appoint district representatives
to the Menu of Service Opportunity priorities and how the clubs
would then have a direct way of helping to provide WCS through
these “Resource Rags”.
In the context of International service, this is a legitimate
question but goes to the oft-criticized matter (that has found
its way to the COL on a number of occasions) of continuity of
purpose. There is a valid view that to change our emphasis year
after year, we do a disservice to the long-term program focus
needed (as per our Strategic Plan) to enhance our public image
and effectiveness.
Fortunately, in this regard, recent Presidents have recognized
this fact and have “stayed the course” with literacy,
environment (water) and health. If we had a RAG in each, the
President could work directly through this group of expert
Rotarians who work with the clubs to become the face of Rotary
on the ground – just like the mobilized Club Rotarians who set
up the immunization clinic in the village – working under an
international master plan and guided by the leaders of the
Action Group since RI itself does not have these expertise in
house. (In this vision, it is easy to see why the recognition
criteria for the approval of a RAG is necessarily more rigorous
than an application to become a Fellowship Group.)
How should RAGs interface with clubs and districts?
This is the “Rotary Model” as expanded upon by Bob Scott in the
July Rotarian. And, it makes good sense! The existing RAGs and
multi-district activity groups are already doing this! This is
the real value of the RIN. The best example of course is the
structure of the Polio Plus program.
Currently each district is encouraged to appoint a Resource
Group chair so that the District Governor is not inundated with
requests and approaches to clubs are channeled through one
individual.
In truth, I have not seen this since 1993 (when President
Cliff Dochterman mandated this to DGs. Presidents Bhichae
Rattakul and Frank Devlyn did the same except on a lesser scale.
As an international training leader for two years and a zone
trainer for 4 years, I recall only these Presidents between 1992
and 2003 who have asked DGs to do this. I doubt if DGs are
trained to do this now. You may have different information.
To say the least, this direction is sporatic and inconsistent.
A permanent direction of appointment of this kind (connecting
with the activity group) would lead to better results as
successive DG’s become aware of the necessity of making these
appointments
RAGs can approach Rotarians, clubs and districts independently.
As they grow in
number, how do clubs and districts cope?
At the moment, in WCS, most projects are generated by a club
member being inspired by a personal contact, acting on an
unsolicited approach from another club of seeking a project
though one of the many channels available to it. This would not
change.
The reality is that for most clubs in donor countries, only a
very few individual Rotarians become engaged in international
service. It is usually these individuals who act and speak for
the clubs. The club works through these people on the WCS
Committee so the club need not feel overwhelmed by any desire by
the committee to lead it into a proliferation of “causes” as the
question implies. The club would continue to have the autonomy
to do whatever it wants in WCS
The growth in numbers and quality of programs would simply be
another source of information on ways in which the club could
engage in WCS. The difference here is that by connecting to the
larger initiative, with greater HR, a targeted WCS issues and
financial capacity, the potential for a more sustainable program
is possible. This is also consistent with better results based
international development principals.
Will they take over World Community
Service?
I am not sure what this means but it appears to be an emotive
staff driven question that simply raise the rhetoric and
emotional response to negative speculative change. No one and no
Rotary organization would “take over” WCS. Did the TRF “take
over” the polio initiative? No! But, by focusing the club
activity and fundraising through this Rotary entity (TRF),
Rotary has succeeded in many many ways!
The impact on The Rotary Foundation is concerning the Trustees.
By approaching
potential partners of TRF, are RAGs diverting funds from TRF?
More importantly, as
they solicit funds from individual Rotarians, or DDF, will they
impact on Rotarian giving
to the Foundation?
TRF is not structured to seek money for specific WCS causes
(Polio Plus is the exception)
TRF does not manage or promote any specific projects or
programs (other than Polio) for which it goes to non-Rotarians
for money (it tried through PRIP Jim Lacie, but failed)
The organizations and people that give money to RAGs give
money because these Action Groups address causes in which they
are interested and prepared o support. TRF does not have a
mechanism nor would there be, in my opinion, any reason why the
Packard Foundation or the World Bank or Coco-Cola would give RI
any money to provide Ambassadorial Scholarships! On the other
hand, when the Gates Foundation was asked to participate in the
specific cause of polio irradication, a major amount of money
was contributes!
There is no evidence to suggest that there is a diversion of
funds taking place.
It has been reported that the Shelter Box Program of Great
Britain raised 11 million dollars in about 4 months in the name
of Rotary to contribute to Tsunami relief. It has raised over
2.5 Million for the Pakistan earthquake relief delivery of
shelters. The Fellowship for Fighting Aids has generated over 8
million dollars to fight Aids in Africa. If these groups had
been recognized by Rotary as Rotary Action Groups and supported
by the Foundation, might these publicly raised funds have gone
through the Foundation? Perhaps! Whether of not this would have
happened, there is enormous potential for similar success
stories now to be incorporated directly in the new Rotary
program allowed by the Global Networking Groups. The potential
is unfathomable. But, a positive and coordinated collaboration
between RI, TRF and the Action Groups will be required. This is
a major planning initiative but worthwhile considering (perhaps
as a pilot project). An incremental strategy would be necessary.
If they approach TRF for program funding, probably through the
clubs of enthusiastic
and committed RAG members, how should TRF. Respond?
Perhaps the day will come when some of the Rotary Action Groups
(RAGs) will catch the eye of the Foundation Trustees. Like a
“Rag Rug” to which many people and resources contribute to
produce a beautiful and functional mosaic, it is not
inconceivable that the service being done by a RAG is of such
note as to think that the Rotary Foundation will regard them as
an attractive potential service partner.
A matching grant perhaps?
A restricted fund?
A donor-advised fund?
A policy that could allow for funds raised in the name of
Rotary by the RAG might flow through the Foundation and allow
for the engaging of staff professionals who are tasked to manage
or work on specific programs initiated by the Action Group? Why
not? This would be a win-win for both and make the balance sheet
of the Foundation look that much better.
Clearly, those submitting the RAGS application for recognition
have to consider very carefully how to distinguish the RAGs
initiative from the good work that can be done through the
Foundation and ensure no conflict.
It is fair to say that TRF is not structured to be in the same
business as is contemplated by the Disaster Relief RAG
application.
For example, the DRRAG (disaster relief RAG proposal) could
and should be of assistance to clubs who are utilizing TRF
funding and working through the Rotary channels (RIN). This is
already covered in Board policy. But, I see nothing in the TRF
or Board initiative that helps with the question of how to
position Rotary as a Disaster relief organization (nor do I
think it should be). The point is that a DRRAG has the capacity
that TRF does not have. That is, to work within the framework of
the SPHERE Project and provide the guidance that our clubs and
districts will need in determining how to best provide the
emergency response.
SPHERE is a good example of where Rotary has fallen down on
disaster relief and is not seen as a world player because it is
not itself “qualified” under this international standard. The
Board could insist that a RAG carrying out this specific service
function under the Rotary banner be so certified.
There are some administration issues. Who will monitor the
performance and standards
of each RAG?
In my view, the issue of a RAG in this or any other initiative
is a product of an appropriate guideline (or recognition
criteria) established within the policies of Rotary to assure
Rotary that this approved Rotary entity has the credentials to
act in the name of Rotary in these specialized areas (just as
Rotary has developed the expertise in working with our partners
in the Polio initiative. The potential scope is of similar
proportions). I tried to convince our past President and G/S to
revisit this recognition criteria - without success.
The degree of guidance to be provided by the RI Board over the
next few years will be a function of the quality of organization
that develops in each Rotary Action Group. The staff will have
to be guided by and implement the policy
The level of acceptable “behavior” and organizational
integrity of these emerging groups of Rotarians will predict the
extent of the oversight required. At a well-attended workshop at
the Centennial Convention participants cited a primary goal of
having Action Groups undertake WCS programs that are consistent
with the Rotary areas of emphasis and the Millennium Goals.
Clearly the development of organizational and managerial
capacity is a necessary starting point.
Undertaking a programmatic approach to international
development is preferential to a project-by-project approach.
The TRF trustees have discovered this though the KPMG report.
The measurable results must necessarily tie into the poverty
reduction strategies of the countries and the sectors in which
the Action Group is focusing its attention. The cost of
administration for small projects is a concern. RAGs can be part
of this solution
Rotary Action Groups have the potential to “behave” like
operational NGO’s and perform in a much more effective manner
because of the relationships that can be built through the club
and district networks.
What are the staff implications for RI?
At the moment, the staff implications are benign but that is
because the application process is benign.
If a recommendation is made that requires a much more
intensive and rigorous recognition criteria, then the staff will
have to spend more time on the process than it presently does
with Fellowship Groups.
At the same time, if the President accepts the notion of a
RAGs Resource Committee to which much of this specialized
understanding is delegated, then this effective committee could
take up much of the load in working with the RAG applications
and even get into policy compliance oversight.
It is a fact that a number of RAGs already exist, and a couple
of senior Rotary leaders are enthusiastically encouraging
Rotarians to establish more and more.
There is no doubt that this vision is catching the imagination
of the Rotary world but it is not because of “promotion” by
Rotary leaders.
It is because this service delivery model makes sense and
Rotarians like the idea of being able to connect with other
Rotarians – from other clubs around the world - with similar
interest, talents and determination to do a specific kind of
WCS.
They work in their clubs but they use the contact and capacity
of the larger more specialized interest group of Rotarians to
implement International Service in a more congruent manner
Currently RAGs are required to have an AGM at the International
Convention, with
meeting space provided free by R.L We currently have some 15
additional RAGs who
have either applied or are preparing applications. As the number
of RAGs increases,
what are the implications for the Convention?
Firstly, the numbers of convention goers increases!
The number of display booths increases in the House of
Friendship
The programs and expertise found within the RAGs could be
engaged to run discussion groups on particular programs (i.e
HIV/AIDS; Children at Risk, Malaria, Land Mines etc.)
Secondly, there is great value in having these meetings taking
place, Indeed, for a RAG - perhaps it should be mandatory. This
is now happening anyway!
The venue can be used to undertake some of the RI oversight
referred to above.
Such on opportunity also exposes the rest of the Rotary world
to the exception work being done under the leadership of these
Rotarian Action Groups
One of the current Groups, having acknowledged the need to
complete polio eradication,
is saying that action can now be taken to "assess/cajole
partners create our strategy, and prepare our foot soldiers in
pursuit of our goal." Clearly they see themselves as Rotary's
next corporate project.
The Board has decided to defer accepting new RAGs until the
newly established RI RAG committee has had the opportunity to
consider the implications and to report to the
November meeting of the Board.
A recommendation that this committee may wish to consider is on
the issue of how many RAGs should the Board approved in any one
humanitarian WCS sector?
It would be hoped at an applicant would provide evidence that
it has canvassed and attempted to include all of the known
Rotary groups currently involved in the service area
(humanitarian sector) so as to ensure a broadly based discussion
among Rotarians on issues of "best practice" and the important
linkages that are necessary to tackle any world wide problem in
a congruent way.
If you use Polio Plus as a modal pyramid of Rotary
connectedness, you can see that any RAG may have country
coordinators, District Committees and club liaison, RAG Partner
Groups (like Polio Plus Partners), and the many Rotary,
government and interagency partnerships that the RAG application
contemplates.
A rigorous application process has the potential of
identifying long-term results that would be the norm for a
visionary and well researched, written and comprehensive
recognition submission. It would be hoped that there would be
only one Rotarian Action Group providing this global leadership
in any one area of WCS. (not unlike the division that exists in
Resource groups). But the RAG (say, Environment, might have a
number of subsets i.e. water, forestry, recycling etc.)
RAGs exist because Rotarians with a passion for a cause want
the opportunity to promote their special interest within Rotary.
The challenge is to enable this to happen without the Board
losing its ability to ensure the integrity of every group and
program that carries the name of Rotary.
As Director, Horst Heiner Hellge recently opined:
------- “I am attaching great value and importance to the
results and proposals of our RAG Committee and I hope they'll
work really quickly. This Committee has quite different terms of
reference than other committees which gives this committee an
even higher rank and importance. I am optimistic and quite
confident that our RAG baby will see a good future if we are
really looking after it and taking care of its future functions
and authorities.”
Best regards,
W. B. "Bill" Boyd
President-Elect, Rotary International
cc:2006-07 Board of Directors. Rotary International
|
