PART 1
Observations on the RAGs Concept – Post June 2005
This paper summarizes observations and reports made by interested Rotarians on the Rotary Program: Global Networking Groups including Rotarian Action Groups.
In 2005, an Ad Hoc Committee chaired by PRIP Jim Lacy recommended the creation of the Rotarian Action Group program under a new umbrella program called Global Networking Groups. The report and recommendation was delivered to the Board by committee member, PRID Ray Klinginsmith. The original concept name from then RID John Eberhard was: Rotary Registered Service Affiliates (shortened to Rotary Service Affiliates – RSA). The Board approved the concept under the name: Rotarian Action Groups, which was recommended by the Lacy committee.
The comments in part 2 of this document summarizes in an objective way (both positive and negative observations) comments made in response to the original concept paper which was circulated among approximately 50 Rotarian leaders including senior leaders, staff and Rotarians experienced in Fellowship Groups and International Development (WCS).
A summery of Rotarian Action Groups can also be found on the History Fellowship web sight at: http://www.rotaryfirst100.org/philosophy/fellowship/action/index.htm



Tin Tin Nu Raschid, Chair 2005-06 (Fellowships Committee year end report)

Dear Fellow Rotarians,

It has been a great honor for me to have been appointed to Chair the RI Committee on the Global Networking Groups by President Carl-Wilhelm Stenhammer. I am the first woman to Chair this Committee, and the last chair of the Global Networking Groups. From July 1, 2006, there will be two separate Chairs. Abe Gordon will Chair the Fellowships and Brian Knowles will Chair the Rotarian Action Groups.

During the year my committee recommended, and the RI Board approved, four Global Networking Groups , namely, Rotarians Eliminating Malaria, International Fellowship of Shooting Rotarians, Rotarians for Advancement of Latin Culture and International Fellowship of Marathon Running Rotarians. There are a couple of Groups that will be considered at the next Board meeting. Three Fellowships, namely, Rotarian Amateur Astronomers, Arts & Communication and Ballroom Dancing have disbanded, bringing the total to 95, as of May, 2006.

Also as of May 2006, 86 Global Networking Groups have been categorized as Rotary Fellowships, and the following nine groups are categorized as Rotary Action Groups:

1. Rotarians for Fighting AIDS
2. Rotarian Action Group of Dental Volunteers
3. Rotarians for Hearing Regeneration
4. Humanitarian Service Rotary Action Group
5. Rotarians Eliminating Malaria
6. Rotarians for Mine action
7. Rotarian Action Group for Multiple Sclerosis
8. Rotarian Action Group for Population and Development
9. Rotarian Action Group for polio Survivors and Associates.

President Elect Bill Boyd has appointed a Committee for the Rotarian Action Groups for 2006-07. This committee will be called upon to study all pending Rotary Action Group proposals and share findings with the Board in November, at which time they will be considered for official recognition. The committee will also make recommendations to the Board concerning policies for these groups in order to better the good work that they do on behalf of Rotary.

A total of 32 Global Networking Groups participated at the Convention in Copenhagen and Malmo. My grateful thanks go to all the Rotarians who took time to come out and attend the booths and inform the Rotarians of their activities. Special thanks goes to Phyllis Nusz for preparing the Posters for the General Booth, which was manned by Marc Crotts, Ed & Lois Goering, Ursula Grattapaglia, Mike Jackson, Mike Lakin, Robin & Susan Shelly, Dick & Cay Roberts, Vinnie & Radha Kudva and Bilal Raschid.

We have been going through a lot of changes in the past couple of years, and yet all of us are doing what we have always done for our Fellowships, and for the good of humanity. Whatever RI's decisions may be, we stand very strong on our own, and I am sure all of us will continue to keep our Fellowships progressing in every way.

My very special thanks to Jesse Allerton, Senior Co-ordinator, Service Support & Awards Department of RI who was a great support throughout the year.

Sincerely,

Tin Tin Nu Raschid, Chair 2005-06

See below for minutes of those Rotarian Acton Group representatives who met at the Copenhagen Convention

Summery of Code of Policies by topic:
Synopsis of RI Policy concerning RAGs, from Rotary Code of Policy, para 40.010
( a paper prepared by PDG Buck Lindsay)


“A Rotary Action Group is a voluntary association of Rotarians who unite themselves for the purpose of conducting international service projects, . . . “


A. Legal Recognition: RAG must:

1. file application and action plan with goals, projects, and expertise with the RI Board
2. have Rotarians from three countries with common interest
3. compliment the service activities of Rotary
4. not effect health or safety, or be contrary to RI policy
5. RI Board approves application

B. Legal Conditions:

6. Activities are in harmony with RI Policy, including use of Rotary marks, or RAG may be terminated by the RI Board.
7. Has governing documents consistent with RI policy, approved by RI Board.
8. Does not promote religious beliefs, political issues or other organizations
9. Is not an agency of RI
10. Exists in their countries in harmony with local laws
11. Activities are independent of RI
12. RI, districts and clubs have no legal, financial or other obligation to RAG. RAG is self-sustaining financial, administratively, and otherwise
13. Does not act on behalf of RI or represent it has authority to do so.
14. RI does not provide insurance to RAGs; RI encourages RAGs to get their own coverage
15. RI recommends that RAG’s incorporate
16. Submit annual report of activities, projects, dues, financial statement, funds on hand to members, and copy RI GS by October 1st each year
17. RI lists contact info for RAG in RI Directory

C. RAG Internal Administration:

18. Has minimum of three offices, one a Chair who is active Rotarian
19. Membership open only to Rotarians, spouses and Rotaractors
20. Functions in accordance with its approved purpose
21. Publishes at least one newsletter per year for its members, and copy RI GS
22. Has an annual meeting at RI convention
23. Replies to inquiries
24. Maintains website; does not solicit project funds thereon
25. Has prescribed RI disclaimer prominent on all printed material, website and in agreements with other parties
26. Dues is reasonable, and its uses disclosed on membership forms and in governing documents
27. Rotarians may not circularize its own or other RAGs to promote personal business

D. RAG projects:

28. Encouraged to work with Rotary clubs and districts to promote and support their service projects.
29. Advises the RI GS if soliciting or offering funds over $25,000 from / to third parties
30. Gets approval of governors before contacting districts, clubs or Rotarians, except for its own membership.
31. Does not solicit support for its projects from clubs or districts without RI Board approval




From: Bill Boyd
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 11:52 AM
To: John J. Eberhard; Frank Devlyn at Mexico; Robert Scott; Luis Giay
Cc: SUSHIL GUPTA
Subject: RE: Health Fairs
Does any one appreciate that we have an official Rotary Resource Group on health? Bill


Reply

From: John Eberhard
Sent: Martes, 04 de Abril de 2006 01:49 p.m.
To: 'Bill Boyd'; 'Frank Devlyn at Mexico'; 'Robert Scott'; 'Luis Giay'
Cc: 'SUSHIL GUPTA';
Subject: RE: Health Fairs

April 5, 2006

Hello Bill,

Yes, indeed, very good question, Bill - a question that should have been addressed, in my opinion, at this early stage of the implementation of the Rotarian Action Groups program. One of the difficulties that some have had with the RAGs concept is the role that is expected to be played by them. How does it differ from the role of Clubs and the role of International Committees and Resource Groups. How can they assist the Clubs to better perform certain community service projects? What is the criteria used to determine whether or not an applicant should receive recognition? Unfortunately, this aspect of the Board's policy was not sufficiently thrashed out!

As you point out, the "official" Resource Groups are every bit as "official" as the Board approved Rotarian Action Groups. This information on the Resource Groups is readily available to all Rotarians who read the O/D. The extent to which Rotarians make use of it is a different matter. The mandates are quite different and at the moment there is really no connection between the two. There should be, in my opinion!

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. But now, it does not seem so clear!

Your 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.") and what is expected to be done by the clubs. 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). 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 (unfortunately). Primarily, this is because of the very restricted mandate and/or a lack of detailed "job descriptions" provided to Resource Groups. Witness, the grief that was provided the World Community Service Committee last year just because it wanted to "do something" - i.e. host a meeting! Perhaps it is this latter point that has prompted so many Rotarians to create the many proliferating "cause related" Rotarian based entities.

Ultimately, if harnessed in a discerning way, they will be very beneficial to the service delivery capacity of Rotary and its public image. This, again in my opinion, is something that Resource groups are not mandated to be or to do. But like you, I am concerned that the policy framework is not yet complete. I strongly believe that a clear distinction between the mandate of both RAGs and RI Committees have to be worked out. To a large extent, this boils down to the question: By what criteria will an Action Group be recognized by the Board? I did a lengthy paper on this but the staff did not act on it. This is regrettable now because without such a policy in place, there are questions such as the one you have raised that have no forum in which an answer can be formalized. It would be my hope that the Board will consider this very question at some time in the near future.

Thank you Bill, for taking the time to keep abreast of this challenging question and entering into the discussion.

Best regards,

John


Brian Knowles

Dear John,

Thanks for your various communications in relation to the matter of the Rotary Action Groups. I am aware that there is divided opinion on this issue among Rotary leaders, past and present, and it will be the task of my committee to sort through these and formulate a policy that will be
beneficial to our organisation. I am well aware of the importance of this task, and it is borne out by the amount of communication that has been received since the committee was first appointed. Indeed, in all of the years I have served on various RI committees/task forces etc, I have never
accumulated such a large file before the committee has even met. I just hope we can sift through the information overload and find the best answer.

I realise that it is going to be almost impossible for us to come up with a solution that makes every Rotarian happy - I just hope our solutions satisfy the vast majority.

Brian.



Frank Devlyn

Good Thinking…………..RAGS with guidelines will give new needed momentum to Rotary International. It was a long time coming but finally our Board saw the benefits. It is only logical that a group of dedicated Rotarians from 20 countries, etc. be able to promote what any local small Rotary Club is doing today.
-----------------------------

I have to agree with John. I believe that Bill will also come up with ways to use John’s passion in feeling that these Rotary Action Groups are a Win- Win for Rotary. I see it as a Rotary changing with the times to continue to be relevant. I see it as a way to stay ahead of the times. We will come up with the necessary guidelines.
------------------------

Hope all see the good work you want to do by bringing together those persons who have a passion to promote the value of these Health Fairs. Good that persons who acquire the expertise will come together whether it be in a Fellowship and even better if you get a group of Proactive Rotarians who actually want to be an Action Group. It is encouraging to see that the actual Health Fairs are organized by the local clubs. This is the traditional ways in which community service projects are undertaken and therefore not anything unusual! Except - the overall RAGs guidelines and professional guidance is provided by those who have developed a standard protocol for these events! Were it not for the encouragement and the consistent professional standards developed by this "Action Group", the results would have been much different. Perhaps the clubs would never have undertaken the organizational task in the first place.

-------------------------

Good that we are having good discussions as noted in below email from John Eberhard. I see Rotary changing with the times to not only keep up with the times but even to be Ahead Of The Times. RAGS & Fellowships are going to be the reason persons stay in Rotary in this our second century.

--------------------------

So many details to look into regarding Fellowships and Rotary Action Groups but at the end of the day we will come up with the necessary guidelines. I personally feel that these groups will be the reason that Rotary remains relevant or more relevant in our second century. We will be channeling Rotarians into Special Interest Groups in Fellowships or Rotary Action Groups where persons interested come together.


Dear Family of Rotary:
As one of Rotary's Key Leaders allow me to share my personal thoughts where I try to Create Awareness for you and others to Take Action regarding fellowships & Rotary Action Groups.
When I see members of The Family of Rotary with a Special Interest which might be a hobby, recreational activity, vocation, humanitarian, educational, health related or country focused issue, I look for ways that they might come together, at same time enhance Rotary & help keep them interested & involved in Rotary. One of those ways that is more meaningful and with some degree of continuity & applicable to Rotary is via Our Existing & Ever Growing Fellowships & our New Rotary Action Groups.
I have a personal goal of helping Rotarians that have or live with someone who has one of life’s many health related issues coming together in Rotary Fellowships & Rotary Action Groups to explore how they might benefit, support, help one another, create awareness, take action, etc. to help themselves and others. Good to see that we now have Approved Fellowships where Rotarians with Repaired Hearts, M.S. & Hearing Loss can come together if they wish as well as those who have a “Special Interest” in that particular health issue.
I also want to help Rotarians who have so many reputable "Special Interests" that are now or in thre process of becoming Rotary Action Groups involving landmines, population, food & hunger, literacy, water, Eyecare, etc. We have to find new ways of channeling Rotarians with those reputable “Special Interests” into Fellowships or Rotary Action Groups. If we don’t proactively promote these Fellowships & Rotary Action Groups we will continue to lose members in the same way other organizations, groups and churches have lost members.
I’m glad that we have Fellowships like that of Rotary International Convention Goers that is made up of Rotarians who not only like going to our Conventions year after year but they also want to promote Convention Attendance as a unique way to learn of the internationality of Rotary.
Because we are so proud of mentioning our involvement with the birth of the United Nations, I’d like to see a Rotary Friends of the U.N. Fellowship of those Rotarians who like sharing information about the work of that organization. Being innovative I can see the benefit of other fellowships which could be Rotarians who have a “special interest” involving the World Bank, International Development Bank, Boy & Girl Scouts, etc., etc. The basic idea is to allow those Rotarians with any respectable "Special Interests" in Our Family of Rotary to come together via a Fellowship or a Rotary Action Group where they would communicate among one another via Internet & and find ways of getting together at our Conventions, etc.
I recently found a group of Rotarians who have as their "special interest" to be involved in helping Mongolia and others who feel the same about helping Cambodia . The idea that came to mind was……………………………… Why not fellowships of Rotary Friends of Mongolia , Rotary Friends of Cambodia or Rotarian Friends of Any Particular Country?? (Rotarian Friends of Ethiopia ) Let’s face it, there are Rotarians who have an interest in helping certain areas of the world and others who could care less. Hope you see the idea or concept of bringing together and allowing Rotarians with a desire to help a certain country to know one another if that is their desire in a ongoing organized manner. I can not for the life of me understand why we have not thought of something similar in the past.
What ever the Fellowship, Recreational, Vocational, Educational, Health Related, Country Focused or whatever respectable "Special Interest Group" we would always keep highly in mind that Rotary is a highly respected international organization & for that reason whatever we do has to take into account the importance of respecting ethnic, cultural & religious sensitivities found in Our Rotary World.
Existing Rotary Fellowships from Repaired Hearts, Eyecare , MS , Polio Survivors Fellowships are examples for The Family of Rotary to consider the forming others dealing with Diabetes, Cancer Survivors, Hepatitis C, etc.
The existing Population and HIV related fellowships is another example of Rotarians with that Special Interest coming together and after being a Fellowship are now a Rotary Action Groups. There are distinct differences regarding the guidelines for Fellowships which are different to Rotary Action Groups and all should learn those differences.
Promoting the above is a Rotary coming into its second century by having adapted to Changing Times. Not accepting changes of the type I am mentioning in my personal opinion simply will make us go the route of other similar type organizations that like certain businesses have now been long forgotten.
I hope you get my message of trying to help Rotary in finding a variety of innovative ways to keep Rotarians interested in staying in Rotary. You can help Rotary at all levels to see the benefits of promoting the concept of Fellowships, Rotary Action Groups and whatever we might call now or in the future these well meaning Rotarians who would like to have their respectable "Special Interest Group" coming together.
Your Amigo in Mexico City ,
Frank Devlyn
-----------------------------------
I really do not see the problem in Fund Raising as every Rotary Club and District have always carried out independently of the R.I. Board or Trustees of The Rotary Foundation.

It is hard for me to grasp why A RAG would be much different. We never have limited a Club to ask permission to get funds for their projects. Why make it more difficult for RAGS?

Can you imagine telling all the Rotary Clubs & Districts of the world that they have to limit their Fundraising for their Special Interest Projects??? We would have a Revolution!!

Of Course we should set up some guidelines but I hope we would never Stop them from using their initiative which is the basic reason of Rotary's success in all of our history. I can see Rotary Clubs saying "Goodbye Rotary....We are starting Our Own Organization that does not hold us back".

My conclusion we need the enthusiasm that might come from different RAGS that will help us carry out projects which will have more of an impact.

Frank







John Eberhard

March 23, 2006

Dear Frank

Thank you for including me in this Frank. I think Rotary is on the right track here as well. The Rotarian Action Groups will open up a whole new vista of service opportunities - undertaken in a more congruent way and in support of our strategic plan which invites RI to "sharpen it program focus". Really, as was suggested to the June Board meeting that created the Global Networking Groups Program entity, this additional means of undertaking World Community Service can indeed work collaboratively with TRF and RI through the club and district network - realizing that individual clubs do not have the capacity to do what an "action group" can do (witness - PolioPlus!). At the same time, a RAG can be tremendously supportive of what our clubs do and in creating expert protocols for undertaking our traditional projects. There need be no threat to clubs in this new paradigm of service delivery.

But the devil is in the detail and as you suggest, a clear policy framework is necessary to ensure "excellence" in the development of a Rotarian Action Group. This includes a clear working relationship with TRF, international committees (task forces and resource groups) and the Clubs. The Board has taken a bold step to advance this program but the recognition issues were not thoroughly debated and I applaud the recent decision to step back and ensure that the single Rotarian Action Group approved in a particular sector has the capacity, the expertise, the internationality and a mandate supported by RI to perform with the efficacy that will raise the public image of Rotary and make Rotarians proud to be associated with the activity - the very way in which Rotarians feel proud of being associated with the Polio Plus program.

As I suggested in a letter to RIP Carl-Wilhelm and G/S Ed last August, I feel strongly that the application process and recognition criteria have to receive attention and widespread approval. Some very comprehensive recommendations were made at that time. In this respect, there was also some excellence guidance provided to the Administration and the Program Committees of the Board last year before the Board agreed to move forward with the GNG program. It would be very useful for those now considering the criteria for recognition of a RAG to review this background and perhaps have input from those involved. Given your outspoken support of this initiative, perhaps you can lend your influence to ensure that this happens. I am confident that it would be helpful.

Thank you for the way in which you "create awareness" and invite others to take action! A Rotarian Action Group, unlike an International Committee in WCS, can do just that! I wonder if there is any connection?

Best regards,

John



Buck Lindsay

RI, through Board decision to adopt Policy 40.010, has defined the relationship between RI and RAG. Bill Boyd expresses a deeper question than the apparent: that being, is it the role of the Board to centralize and control Rotary activities, or can the Board allow entrepreneurial activity centers that operate with realtive independence? Boards by nature see themselves as control agencies. Within the confines of the RI Constitutional documents, the Board has the authority to set and change operational policy. Boards are naturally and rightfully apprehensive of the sub-groups within its ranks that are not governed so as to act in predictable ways. The other side of this coin is that groups who see themselves as self-governed, or autonomous, are more like to exercise creativity and ingenuity in pursuing their objectives that would otherwise not be available or instinctive. This is a question of management style that perplexes businesses . The answer may come from another question: how do you motivate superior performance? Progressive management trends are toward defining the broader goals (as in humanitarian service), and then providing reasonable freedom to allow the actors to achieve those goals. Rather than saying, “Go from point A to point G, and here is the path to take”, the more progressive method says “Go from point A to point G, good luck”. With regard to Fellowships, Initiatives, RAG over the past ten years, the Board has been ambivalent on this question, issuing new governing policies every three years or so. These policy changes emanate from a change of leadership, who see the Board’s role in a different way than the predecessors. This ambivalence and tendency to change its policy every few years is probably to be expected, but it is also imposes chaos on the sub-groups, not just from an organizational point of view, but from a legal point of view. It distracts from their effectiveness and credibility. It would be very nice for the Board to adopt a position, and then keep it. But since this apparently can not be, maybe the RI Council on Legislation needs to address the question, possibly by adopting a RAG policy that is not subject to the changing personalities of the Board.

1. What are RAG relationship to outside Partners?
Current policy is confusing on this account. The referenced policy items infer that if RAG are operating within the confines of RI Policy (which is an enormously large area of confinement, but whose boundaries are finally defined by the Board), then the RAG are free to go about their business in ways they see best fit. But some people state that RAGs do not promote other organizations. It is possible to have a third-party partner in a project, without promoting that other organization. But suspicious observes can always cry foul – saying that by working together, the RAG is promoting the other organization. The reality is that the trend among all service agencies is toward partnering and collaboration. Rotary does it. In order to be effective, all organizations should do it. RAG Population and RAG AIDS do it. So how does RI sit with this reality? The relationship defined in the 40.010 policy seems to address the concern directly: act within the policies of RI, keep us advised of what you are doing and go about your work. If you act outside the RI Policy, the RI Board may terminate the RAG .

2. What are RAG relationship to clubs and districts?

RAG does its work and observes the rules of the Code If the Board feels the need for more constraint on the RAG with regard to the clubs and districts, what might it be?

3. What is relation of RAG projects to RI Task Forces, Resource Groups, WCS?

Because certain action topics are very popular among many Rotarians, the voice of RAG has become audible, and even loud sometimes. It may be bothersome to RI leadership to listen to these voices, but alternatively, the RAG voice can be considered a grass-roots voice, most valid in the sense that it is a voice of a large contingency of members of the organization. Good leadership illuminates direction that the masses may not see as apparent, but as the work toward the goals is accomplished, its validity is proven. But there is also an imperative for good leadership to listen to the voice of those they lead; to ignore that voice could be to miss a key initiative, or even for the leader to find himself without a following. The President and his Board will usually set project and program emphasis, and because of his command of the RI organizational structure and the RI media, the president’s priorities will always be dominant, and command real corporate attention. No RAG can change that. The president appoints the Task Forces and the Resource Groups, so they will be loyal to his charge to them. Concerning whether RAG will influence WCS direction, if RAG are at all effective, they will assert influence. By policy, they are charged to do so. But since only clubs and districts carry out WCS projects, there will always be the following limit on RAG projects. If the clubs or districts are not interested in the projects, they will not do them. It seems leadership would encourage as many voice sources from within its ranks, to have the best chance or correctly reading the desires and wishes of the group.

4. Cost to RI of administering RAG?

This question is answered in the referenced policy paragraphs. RI Code states that it has no financial duty to RAG. RI also agrees to provide RI Directory space and meeting space at the RI Convention (when available), but could easily withdraw those allowances if they were cumbersome. In that RI has established RAG by policy, if it chooses to administer the RAG policy, it must carry out its own prescribed duties within that policy. So RI apparently has already agreed to accept this administrative expense. From this view over the past years, that administrative expense has been minimal. If RI has information to the contrary, please share.

5. Do RAG divert revenue to TRF from Rotarians, Partners, or TRF fund distribution through Matching Grants or DDF?

Our opinion is that RAG increase revenue to TRF, not divert revenue. With only minor exceptions, RAG project money flows to TRF, usually in the form of restricted contributions toward Matching Grants. In the ten years that RAG Population has existed, we recall 20 to 25 Rotarian donations to RAG Population, one $10,000, a few $5,000, some $1,000 and others smaller. These donations all came to RAG Population because the donors believed in the specific mission of the RAG. No one can say, but we think that those funds would have never made it in an unrestricted manner to TRF, since TRF does not emphasize the area of work. The private foundation grants that RAG Population has been given in the past can be regarded in a similar way: they have come from organizations who target this RAG’s area of work, and they see the grant to us as a way of furthering their own objectives. The same grants would have never been given to RI or TRF, since neither embrace the specific work topics of the RAG. So in fact, the ability of RAG to offer specific work topics as a source for both private and foundation grants is a method whereby the restricted funds of TRF are increased, and made more effective in the furtherance of the Objective of the Foundation.


Buck Lindsay


RIDE Monty Audenart
Dear Rotarian Action Group Leaders:

I wish to commend PRID John Eberhard whose vision led to the carving out of the Rotarian Action Groups. After history proved the world was roundthere were no shortage of explorers...not so when it was flat!The Action Groups, in my mind have unlimited opportunities. There is afear I think that somehow Rotary and its Foundation will be lost in all
of this, but I only see the great potential of Rotarians working together for a common purpose through service. Action groups will undoubtedly develop future key resource people that can help all clubs and districts give more "specialized" service, and those of us who serve at the RI level should be quick to embrace that concept.

While I serve on the Board of Directors for 2007-2009, it would be my wish to continue to champion John's vision of Rotarian Action Groups, as well as yours for the good of Rotary.

Thank you for what you do for Rotary,
Monty Audenart
Founder, Rotarian Action Group of Dental Volunteers
Director 2007-2009

PDG Richard Clarke
The Rotary Foundation should consider extending eligibility to utilize 3 H –
Grants to the new Rotary Action Groups.
The new Rotary Action Groups program is an important development in Rotary’s toolboxof humanitarian agents. This initiative is in response to the organic growth of service- related Fellowships that have brought together interested Rotarians from around the globe who want to unite to take action and address international humanitarian concerns. These service-related organizations have become part of international networks of other NGO’s
who share their concerns and determination. They have access to expert partners, well developed and managed action programs and in some cases access to additional funds from NGO’s and state aid agencies.

Within the emerging Rotary Action Groups themselves, there is the internationality of Rotary and the potential to encourage Rotary Clubs to support their initiatives. As they grow in number and strength, they will increasingly have the ability to design, develop and implement significant international projects. The Foundation could through these Rotary Action Groups, leverage Foundation Funds by taking advantage of financial support from others to enable Rotary to undertake significant well planned and executed humanitarian projects.

One current example of this, are the Canadian Rotary Clubs who have been able to take advantage of funding from Canada’s International Development Agency to increase the leverage of club and Foundation funds.

It is important that the Rotary Action Groups not supplant Rotary Clubs as the principle sponsors of international projects. So while they have the capacity to act as a catalyst and an organizer of larger projects and as noted above, can access important expertise and funds from others, there should remain a strong link to Rotary Clubs. To maintain that important principle, Rotary Action Group access to 3H Grants could be made dependent
upon Rotary Club support for the proposed project. Given the required internationality of the Rotary Action Groups, 3 H Grants eligibility could require something like the financial participation of 10 clubs from at least 3 countries.

Rotary Volunteers:

• The Rotary Foundation should consider creating a new program or perhaps work with Rotary International to broaden the current Rotary Volunteers program to help low income countries build the skills and value system necessary to escape the poverty trap.

The current RV program focuses on rather narrow band of specific professional expertise that can be used to help implement either community or international projects in host countries. While there is nothing wrong with the program as it is, there is an additional need for expertise in many low-income countries.

For low-income countries to escape their poverty trap, they need to develop entrepreneur ship, ensure better governance of private companies and public services and build or rebuild their infrastructure. With an organization of 1.2 million members drawn from entrepreneurs and professionals, Rotarians could play an important role in assisting a wide variety of organizations working in low-income countries to help them tackle these foundational aspects of a successful society.




PDG Marco Kappenberger

Dear John


Thank you for doing your best " to ensure that Rotary and the world
will be well served by these" RAGs. For you to see the first successful results of more and better
Service above self made possible by the RAGs will be the best compensation for your so valuable great input.

Rotary has been able to achieve so very much for humankind with PolioPlus, that, at comparably no expense to RI, Rotary has the potential to very easily do so very much more for humankind where the need is greatest and Rotarians are best at, and should thus not wait any longer to reach its full potential and use much better its global organization and all the willing and so very well-prepared Rotarians everywhere to proactively support best possible sustainable development and the Millennium Goals !

Besides RI urgently undertaking soonest to very greatly strengthen its organization and its team doing an always better job in representing RI at the United Nations and so really making optimal use of all the opportunities offered to RI as an NGO (the best and strongest), it will be especially the Rotarian Action Groups that will be ideal to achieve this in the field, everywhere where the need is greatest !

The Environment Fellowship of Rotarians would thus henceforth proactively encourage the formation of RAGs in the fields of Water, Health, Alternative Energies, Pollution, and so many other areas conducive to a better environment and quality of life for all.

As you point out so well "it defines and tests the dedication, integrity, capacity, credibility and professionalism of those wishing to achieve recognition as a Rotary Action Group. The successful ones will indeed sharpen Rotarys program focus"


Looking forward to keep in contact on these so vital matters, I'm very gratefully yours in Rotary service,

Marco Kappenberger

-----------------------------------


"The Action Groups have unlimited opportunities. There is a fear I think that somehow Rotary and its Foundation will be lost in all of this, but I only see the great potential of Rotarians working together for a common purpose through service. Action groups will undoubtedly develop future key resource people that can help all clubs and districts give more "specialized" service, and those of us who serve at the RI level should be quick to embrace that concept."

The Environment Fellowship of Rotarians is busy facilitating the formation of a number of RAGs on the many important aspects of the environment. Each group will submit their application as they will be ready for it, and some of them would be attending our meeting in Salt Lake City.

Looking forward to keep in good contact, yours are the kindest regards,

Marco

Marco Kappenberger

---------------------------------

Dear Amigo Frank,

Your welcome message regarding our Fellowships in Rotary is most welcome, appropriate and timely. Indeed we need to to continually proactively Create Awareness for all to take Action helping Rotary move forward in this our second century and always better fulfill the Object of Rotary !

Rotary International has offered us the unique opportunity to consider transforming our Fellowships into Rotarian Action Groups (RAGs), and I'm happy to share with you the good news that the Environment Fellowship of Rotarians is proactively encouraging Rotarians of similar environmental interests to unite in several such RAGs. We very much look forward to be in contact on this matter and to soon meet RAGs' and Fellowships' representatives at the RI Convention in Copenhagen.

Among the Rotarian Action Groups which the Environment Fellowship of Rotarians is now promoting are also RAGs the fields of :

- Alternative Energies - Energias limpias
- Water Resources / Sanitation - Agua potable y segura para consumo
- Waste Treatment / Recycling - Disposición final de los residuos solidos
- Forestry / Deforestation - Plantación de arboles
- Pollution Control - Control de la polución
- Environmental Education / Consulting - Educación ambiental
- Health / Nutrition - Salud / Nutrición
_ Agriculture / Food - Agricoltura / Generos alimentares
- National Parks - Parcos Nacionales
- Industry / Pulp-Paper - Industria / Producción de papel
- Organic Gardening / Composting - Agricultura organica

which are here listed also in Spanish, which I learned in your Mexico, Frank.

I do thus hereby invite all of you officials of Rotary Fellowships to please mention to your memberships that all Rotarians, their spouses and Rotaractors who have an interest in the environment in general and in any of the above subjects should please visit our Environment Fellowship of Rotarians website
Gracias Amigo Frank.
Long live the Rotary Fellowships and the Rotarian Action Groups !!!

Your amigo in the Pacific,

Marco Kappenberger


Bill Cadwallader, PRID

The assets that I believe Rotary International enjoys as a result of encouraging Rotary Action Groups (RAGS):

1. Involved Rotarians are extremely dedicated to Rotary and committed to developing projects between Rotary Clubs of the world within the policy framework of Rotary International (RI) and The Rotary Foundation (TRF).

2. By facilitating international projects between Rotary clubs of the world RAGS members stimulate a higher level of giving to TRF by raising awareness of the work of TRF in clubs.

3. Like Rotarians who dedicate their lives to the work of Youth Exchange or Interact feel Rotary’s strong commitment to youth, Rotarians who concentrate their efforts to individual RAGS are committed to utilizing Rotary’s networking capabilities for concerns such as population and development, reducing the transmission of HIV/AIDS, massive movements of used medical equipment and school books via world community service contacts and reducing infection from malaria. These activities not only make Rotarians feel pride in their organization, these activities bring respect for our Rotary goals of bringing hope to every world citizen.

4. No matter the amount of giving to TRF, Our Foundation cannot possibly do all the work needed to bring peace through better understanding. Foundation funds should be used to stimulate Rotarians to develop projects, first as a pilot effort using Matching Grant Funds, then as a 3-H Grant to prove the work can be done on a larger scale, and then have the Rotarians seek funds from other sources. This has been done first with Polio-plus, with child-spacing in Nigeria and efforts with AIDS. TRF funds should ideally be used as seed monies for gaining assistance from other cooperating agencies. Monies coming from cooperating agencies should be able to be placed within a Donor Advised Fund for use by the RAG when projects and needs become available.

5. RI Presidents cannot possibly appoint all of the Rotarians interested in doing the work of Rotary to presidential committees. Rotarians appointed to one year term committees for long term problems seldom are able to accomplish more than report on work already being done by others previously as it is hard to initiate, and then complete, projects internationally within one year. RAGS Rotarians work together for the long commitment of 10-20 years allowing development projects that provide continuity and long term sustainability.

Like most things in Rotary, it takes time for the evolution of new ideas to be accepted. You must have been a Rotarian long enough to remember the strong differences of opinion that were present when Clem Renolf proposed 3-H Grants. It was a difficult time for that wonderful Past RI President, yet it passed and became the tool used to develop Polio-plus and so many other great Rotary programs. Few visionaries seem to be in harmony with their peers at the outset of their goals.

Bill Cadwallader, PRID



Matts Ingemanson

I would like to see the Rotarian Action Groups Committee produce a proposal that takes into account the reasonable concerns by Rotary International and at the same time protects the entrepreneurial advantages of the RAGs. I agree that it is important to protect Rotary International from harm and to make sure that Rotary remains a strong unified organization.

I also believe it will be necessary for Rotary to be more decentralized for future growth, which will also attract younger members to Rotary. The rest of society is moving in this direction. History teaches us about the futility of preserving old orders, whose time have come to pass.

Rotary International is an important organization. Without Rotary International, Rotary would not be the international service organization is today. I believe that the Rotary actions take place at the club level. Rotary International's role is to facilitate and support the districts and the clubs in their Rotary Service.

It would not be good for Rotary International to become a bureaucracy that stifles incentives at the grass root level. Rotarians are responsible and compassionate leaders in society with a commitment to service. RI President Bill Boyd recognizes this in his theme "Lead The Way". I think that the RAGs need to be designed so that Rotarians can provide their service through Rotary with maximum efficiency.

I believe the future success of Rotary depends on how successful the Rotarian Action Groups Committee is with the design of its proposal.

Yours in Rotary Service,

Matts Ingemanson



PDG Paul Beaulieu

Hi John,
I have read with a great interest your e-mail sent yesterday about RAG.
First let me congratulate you for having been the leader in that =
project.

Having that accepted by the board in such a short period of time is
wonderful. I remember last November when you did submitted your proposal =
to the board. At that time I thought that is was the beginning of a long
process to have that change. But I am glad today to see that you have
succeeded and this in a short period of time! In my very humble opinion, this new format of Fellowships and Action Groups will clarify the exact role of each groups. Needless to tell you that actually the fellowships and action groups are all mixed up toghether. This bring confusion and the new "appellation control=E9e" will put a end to that.

For many Rotarians, Fellowship, that's what Rotary is all about. For Some others it is a mix of Fellowship and WCS. For me it is clearly WCS which
appeal me the most. Now I know that an Action Group is solely dedicated to WCS. It is now clear and no confusion will no longer exist.

In the last 4 year, I have travelled 4 times in South America to supervise
WCS projects, I attended the South American Project Fair in Miami and I
have been two times in Africa for Polio NID (and I am planning to return
next November). Having been in direct contact with poverty, my choice is
clear and I have a lot more difficulty to spend time in Fellowships, mostly
because I consider we can develop a true fellowship thru WCS actions and
with people we are in contact with when we are and implementing the
projects.

I don't say that Fellowships are not useful, but personnally that does =
Not respond to my main and personal vison of Rotary. With the new system no
doubt will exist about the real mission of the group. You have set a =
high level selection process and the board appoval will give some =
credibility to the Action Groups

I am taking this opportunity to share few thoughts about Inter Country
Committees. First, I have to admitt that I did not put enough time in it, being busy with the 4 WCS projects I am supervising and also being busy with Aline's illness (She is still in a recovery process.). Added to that,
bussiness requirements and my schedule was completed... For me I discover
after knowing the day to day needs of the ICC that this is not meeting my
vision of Rotary. Maybee it is a personnal view but the use the French
people are doing with ICC does not appeal to me. That's why I will pass the
hand to Elaine Toussaint on the France-Canada ICC. The most important
part of the ICC activity for the French people is the student "term of
probation" in Quebec businesses. They have ask us to find numerous housing
facilities for their children as well as to find employers who would accept
to give a job to their students for their term of probation. As Quebec City
is not a business city it was hard for us to meet their expectations. Also,
many times they want to find some home stay in English speaking families.
It's pretty hard to find that in Quebec City!!! This is Rotary fellowship
but I am not involved in Rotary to find jobs to young whealty French
students. So, if you hear that the Canada - France ICC was not as efficient
as it could have been you now know the reason. I sincerly thought that the
primary reason would be helping each others to have good material in French
for example or to help French speaking poor countries but it seems that it
is not their primary concern.

In conclusion and coming back to RAG, I am really happy that you succedded
in bringing RI to adopt those changes. Thanks for your hard work and
dedication in this matter and if you need any help or support in
implementing RAG you can always count on me.

Regards

Paul Beaulieu

Will Files
To: RID Robert Stuart
Hello Bob,
It was a pleasure meeting you at the Rotary in Russia conference in Moscow. The new Russian district should be one of the fastest growing districts in the world. A big thank you to the RI Board for having the vision to make this historic decision.

As mentioned, the Rotary World Health Fair Program is entering a new phase. We have grown from a small Alaska club sponsorship to the need for a broader base of support. We believe that the Rotarian Action Group structure is ideal for this kind of effort.

First of all, the RAG would enable the Health Fair Program to remain under the Rotary umbrella. As you know numerous groups have formed outside of Rotary because they had no other choice (Wheel Chair Found, Hunger Plus, etc.).

Two of the major concerns I have heard is that there is a duplication of services with WCS and that Rotary International would lose control of the activities of the group.

Regarding the duplication, it seems that the World Community Service group is primarily a clearing house for activities, rather than a real action group.

All of these concerns are addressed in the application process. The RI staff must review the proposals and then send them to the RI Board. It would seem to me that the staff and RI Board could screen all new proposals to ascertain whether or not there were duplications, or control issues. If proposals were deemed inadequate they could be denied or returned for revision. Further, annual reports are required of RAG's under the current rules. This would give the RI staff and Board an opportunity once again to review and evaluate the effectiveness of the RAG's.

One of the areas of opportunity, in my opinion, is that the Board could encourage different RAG's to collaborate more closely. One example would be the Malaria RAG which has already been approved. If this RAG decided to purchase and distribute mosquito nets, then the Health Fair RAG could plan a fair where the nets could be distributed and where educational information could also be disseminated. Plus other health issues could be addressed at the same time. This would provide a synergy which would enhance both programs.

In conclusion, I would strongly support the concept of RAG's. Hopefully you will look at our proposal and see that it is well thought out, has an excellent track record, and a vital future under the Rotary banner. Please feel free to ask additional questions.

Attached is a copy of our application for a World Health Fair Rotarian Action Group, including By Laws.

Yours in Rotary service,

Will
Will Files
World Health Fair Program
Homer, Alaska USA

Dear John:

You are absolutely right when you say that the marriage of the two.....R.C.
or Rotary District working with the help of any RAG will make good things
happen. Every RAG needs both Rotary Clubs or Rotary District that is
closest to site of project so it can be carried out. The marriage is
vital.

Your Amigo in Mexico City,

Frank Devlyn

(in resonse to the following)

Dear Matts.

Thanks you for this thoughtful piece. I think the element of tolerance and good will - historic elements of our history - are reflected in your viewpoint. Of course, you have hit the conflict button when you say:

"I believe that the Rotary actions take place at the club level. Rotary International's role is to facilitate and support the districts and the clubs in their Rotary Service.------- RAGs need to be designed so that Rotarians can provide their service through Rotary with maximum efficiency".

It is this inherent conflict between efficiency and club activity that provided the challenge. An accommodating marriage would be helpful and this is why the policy that our 2005 Board established that "encourages RAGS to work through the Club and District network" is a
helpful starting point for the RAGs committee to consider. The two concepts can, I would submit, be in harmony with one another. We do have to face the reality and recognize that Clubs simply do not have the capacity to do what RAGS can do in International Service (and resource
groups and RI Committees are not currently structured to be of any tangible assistance). It is the marriage of the two that will bring Rotary truly into its second century of service with the required efficacy that you have suggested is necessary.

Thanks for the comments.
Best wishes,

John


At the Convention in Copenhagen, an opportunity was provided for the existing and applicant Rotarian Action Groups to meet. The Chairs of the groups who were aware of the meeting met a the conclusion of the Fellowship Groups Annual meeting in the room provided by Rotary International. The Chairperson of the Fellowships Group requested past director and former liaison director to the Fellowship Committee to Chair the meeting. On consensus by those present, PRID John Eberhard was asked to convene a facilitated discussion on the present status of the RAGs and hear from each of the groups on the progress they are making in their administrative development. The following is a brief overview of the topics covered.

Minutes of Meeting of the Chairpersons of Rotarian Action Groups (CCRAGs)

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Welcome by John Eberhard, RID 2003-2005, past Director Liaison to Fellowships Committee, ad hoc Chair:

Present:

Martin Taurins RAGMSA
Robbie Donno Gift of Life
Marco Kappenberger Environment
Brian Stoyal Malaria
Marion Brunch AIDS
Monty Audenart Dental Volunteers
Richard Clarke Mine Action
Matts Ingemanson RGHF
Robert Zinser Population


Regrets:

Dave Sclair Hearing Loss
Charles Clemmons Humanitarian Service
Will Files Health Fairs
Item:

The ad hoc meeting, facilitated by John Eberhard PRID, provided all Chairs and potential chairs of RAGs an opportunity to review their programs successes and challenges.

All expressed gratitude to RI for the opportunity to meet for the first time since the formation of the new Global Networking Program. All agreed it that this forum was an important opportunity to share ideas and information about the operation of the Rotarian Action Groups.

Each of the chairpersons gave a brief introduction and up-date on the status of the Rotarian Action Group that they represented or were in the process of forming

The most evident challenge was unanimously observed by all to be the Board of Directors of Rotary International. The group praised the initiative of the segregation of the Global Networking Groups into Service and Fellowship categories but reacted very negatively to the threat to the Rotarian Actions Program by the most recent Board meeting and the “moratorium” placed on applications currently in the pipeline. A positive view was taken of the appointment of the RAGs Committee for next year and the hope was expressed that this committee would have more time to focus on this new paradigm of service, understand its capacity for service delivery and recommend a new positive and collaborative relationship between RAGs and the Board as well as potential collaboration with TRF.

An agenda consisting of various items of interest to all was created on an ad hoc basis

Item:

The following topics were discussed:

• Reviewed Code of Policy issues

• Discussed how the RAGs are working with Clubs and Districts in the Rotary International Network (RIN) in compliance with Board encouragement

• Discussed how RAGs can function within the Code of Policies in respect of Administration matters and funding. All agreed that this was possible and desirable

• Structure of RAGs comparisons

• Consensus that a Presidentially appointed dedicated RAGs committee is formed annually. It was suggested that to be more helpful to RI, members of this committee be experienced and well-known leaders in the field of WCS with specialized knowledge of the sectors in which RAGs are functioning and experienced in the operation of Global Networking Groups.

• A pro-active and engaged Board liaison Director is needed to create a viable link with the Board, the strategic planning committee and the TRF Future Visioning Committee

• There is a need for the Board to consult with Global Networking Groups before policy decisions are made that will impact on these groups. In the past (i.e. insurance and indemnity decisions) the lack of this consultation process led to great angst among the some 75,000 Rotarian Fellowship members worldwide.

• Issues dealing with fundraising practices within an RI mandate were discussed and it was agreed that to date there has been no conflicts. It was stressed that any money raised for programs undertaken by RAGs would not have been donated to TRF for a variety of reasons but it was also noted that clubs doing projects within the broader and larger RAGs programs were raising funds in the usual WCS manner and some taking advantage of matching grants through clubs that were involved in RAGs programs

• A strong consensus was reached that a consultative process with RI would be useful and that a means of coordinating the advocacy from the RAGs groups would be helpful to ensure a consistent message and transparent flow of credible information to the board was essential (many rumors and speculation has given rise to views and opinions on RAGs by Board members that are not based on factual information)

• It was noted that being a member of a GNG gave a reason to attend conventions

• The House of Friendship is an ideal place for Rotarians to become engaged with GNG’s

• It was agreed that policies should be put in place to ensure that the approval of RAGs is done pursuant to a rigorous and consistent criteria. If any policy has not been fully created , it would be in the establishment of such a criteria. Recognizing that the group chosen will be the only one recognized by Rotary in a particular sector, the right decision has to be made for the right reasons. One of these would be its internationality and administrative capacity to perform what service it holds out its expertise to be able to do.

• It was agreed to submit a joint brief to the RAGs Committee (meeting August, 2006) and continue to try to get the positive RAGs message to members of the Board. A more formal structure of some kind was recommended for this purpose. (No decision was made as to how or when this might happen or what its role would be)

The meeting concluded with all congratulating one another on the excellent work being done in the field and the expression of the hope that RAGs would become an engrained feature of the way Rotary does some of its WCS in the foreseeable future.

It was agreed that a meeting be called for Salt Lake City and that all Chairs of RAGs to be invited in advance with a proper agenda established in collaboration with the RI RAGs Committee. It was hoped that that committee and a member of the Board would be represented at the next meeting.

Best wishes were expressed by all.


Ron Denham

1) One of my major concerns is lack of continuity. Resource Groups exist only at the pleasure of the President.

2) 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. We remain
short-term, project-focused with few exceptions (which exceptions I am encouraging e.g. Nakuru (20 RCCs working to bring safe water to 1.2 million people), or PRID Sushil's program in Churu.

3) 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.

4) 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 marginalized in the major
humanitarian issues of the day.




Marco Kappenberger

Some comments about Rotarian Action Groups :

- RAGs do have a great, welcome potential to give a boost towards achieving the Object of Rotary, and, also with RAGs, the RI Board will always be able to ensure the integrity of every group or program that carries the name of Rotary.

- RAGs are expected to live according to Rotary standards, guarantee a good transparent flow of information to the RI Board, and , yes, RAGs should submit their Annual Report for verification and ratification, act within the RI policies; and while reasonable concerns of the RI Board need to be addressed, it's paramount that to the RAGs' entrepreneurial advantages be guaranteed the needed protection.

- Just like also the RAGs, the RI Board and TRF are free to enter partnerships. When a RAG does enter any partnership first, it does not exclude one with RI or TRF.

- To the extent RI's Resource Groups and Task Forces will eventually be sufficiently structured, capable and motivated, they have a huge potential to greatly contribute towards RAGs serving always better the Object of Rotary. Yes, they need improvement: increasingly composing them of Rotarians really proactively dedicated to and competent in the purpose of their Resource Group or Task Force.

- RAGs will specialize on their own focus, and work with RI, TRF, the Districts of the area of the project and especially with the local Clubs, including the eClubs. The quality of Rotary service, including WCS', to the community, will grow thanks to RAGs. (WCS is the clearing-house, and RAGs act through the Clubs)

- In the world there's plenty more-than-sufficient funding always available for the best projects and causes, and thus the funding available to TRF will never-, nor can ever be limited in any way by RAGs' fundraising. Ideally, Rotarians best continue to entrust their donations where they choose, and RAGs' global service will motivate Rotarians to increase them, including to TRF. Yes, as a consequence of the RAGs' good work, we shall rather see TRF attracting more funds than now, having an always easier task fundraising, and, more than now, always having all needed funding to fulfill all its goals.

- TRF should continue responding as up to now: supporting as best it can the most worthy projects serving best the Object of Rotary: supporting our Clubs, RAGs, Programs, etc. Indeed, since the RAGs will be doing quality Rotary development work, certainly nothing less than fully including RAGs is likely to be the outcome of the deliberations on this matter the Future Vision Committee.



- The present RI organization is sufficient to be adapted to be able/capable to monitor the RAGs' performance and standards. RI will rapidly find that RAGs are long overdue: the logical step towards helping Rotary to better achieving its object in Rotary's 2nd century.

- RAGs, just like Rotary Fellowships, should be offered free information booths and meeting space at the RI Conventions.

- Like all in Rotary, RAGs will also participate supporting well Rotary's corporate projects.

- RAGs enhance the beauty of Rotary, and they do definitely help attract many more potential Rotarians to Rotary, thus they also go a long way in retaining Rotarians in Rotary !


- RAGs would thus be causing good fellowship and have a unifying effect throughout RI. RAGs have the potential to always better achieve the Object of Rotary by using better the huge, unique, yet quite untapped global potential of Rotarians' competence, experience, enthusiasm, tolerance and good will.

- As RAGs make sure to adapt Rotary to the needs in its second century, RAGs will contribute towards making sure that Rotary remains a strong united organization, in unity in diversity, growing and adapting to the new times and needs of our age. RAGs have the potential towards contributing substantially towards Rotary being recognized as really international and being increasingly respected as such. Just like the United Nations, which Rotary and Rotarians had helped creating as an organization which, despite the fact that its headquarter is in the USA and although a major share of funding still comes from the US, Rotary will increasingly be really accepted as international and as most constructive for- and respected by humankind.

- With their enthusiasm, initiative and entrepreneurial character, making the best of their huge potential of Rotarians working together for a common purpose through service, RAGs are giving Rotary Clubs, and in particular to their participating Rotarians, that long sought-after opportunity for action to provide their special service through Rotary and its districts with maximal efficiency, which was up to now badly missed by a very significant number of Rotarians.
Since long Rotary has been owing RAGs of Rotary quality to humankind, and now, with the start of Rotary's 2nd century, we finally have them, and, with continuity in their policy & leadership, from now on they will be constantly improved and adapted to the global needs of humankind, flying high the flag of Rotary.


- Rotary is happiness in helping others, Rotarians and their Rotary Clubs leading the way, united, fighting for a cause, for the sake of humankind, and Rotary is not the fear and prejudice against change and new good and timely developments like the RAGs. These negative sentiments of fear still appear at present and can manifest themselves also through incomplete nor balanced information which sometimes top elected officials of RI are given by staff, and consequently this reflects on- and influences significantly the decisions they will take or vote about. From this may have resulted also the present reluctance to accept the RAGs, or the situation when RI -without consulting the Rotary Fellowships- had decided to try to force them to get insurance, or when, in June 2006, for the second time, a not accurately-informed Board of RI again did not accept the United Nations Fellowship of Rotarians' 2nd application. This non-acceptance of the United Nations Fellowship is another postponement of a great opportunity for Rotary to better serve humankind, because its acceptance would have given Rotary a Fellowship with potential to become a RAG and to achieve very much towards the Object of Rotary, without ever interfering at all in the work done by the RI Representatives to the United Nations.
A still greater effort needs to be done towards promoting the real RI: the global Rotary International based on, elected by and supporting the Clubs, which best allows Rotary to develop and live towards its full potential, serving humankind best.

- Let's all really contribute making sure that RI henceforth always better undertakes to make the best possible use of the so great input which skilled and experienced Rotarians from everywhere around the world have the expertise, enthusiasm, potential, means and the will to offer ! The Rotarian Action Groups are an optimal vehicle for this ! Through their local projects coordinated, wherever Rotary has already reached, through the local Rotary Clubs and Rotarians' proactive participation, RAGs do contribute making Rotary Clubs more attractive, facilitating new Rotary Clubs, and definitely also increasing and retaining membership.


- Recently Mr Warren Buffett announced giving over 30 billion US$ to the Gates Foundation which is chaired by Bill Gates' father, reportedly an Honorary Rotarian.
Why was TRF forgotten at the time when the donor was deciding whom to give his fortune of 30+ billion ? One could argue that, if Rotary had been making better use of its Rotarians' global potential through active RAGs, chances would have been quite higher for TRF receiving a few of those billions.

- How does the Gates Foundation support TRF ? Through the most unique network of Rotary Clubs and most skilled, experienced, and dedicated Rotarians around the planet, TRF has the best potential to optimally use such donated funds to make the biggest difference where the need is greatest.

- Don't we agree that TRF, through the global network of Rotary Clubs, is also better able to practice care in fragile places and making sure to stimulate self-sufficiency rather than fostering dependence or the kind of corruption that often follows aid, and achieve this better than other foundations ?

- RAGs will certainly increasingly help inspiring donors to consider TRF when planning such gifts in the future.


- It was so good and productive to have met in Copenhagen for our first CCRAGs' meeting !
Starting there and then, at the RI Convention in Copenhagen, our Environment Fellowship of Rotarians is proactively facilitating the creation of several Rotarian Action Groups in a number of environmental areas Rotarians are particularly competent and interested in.
- To best develop the criteria by which RAGs will be admitted by the RI Board, hopefully RI staff will soonest make good use of the document John Eberhard had prepared on this and submitted to them.

- It's imperative that Rotary improves with the times, adapting to the needs of a rapidly growing and advancing global civilization, and, besides RI and TRF fundamentally re-evaluating themselves and really improving and adapting their own organization and functioning according to a new better corporate management model, RAGs are definitely of the best, long overdue innovations that can happen to Rotary for humankind at the beginning of our new, 2nd Rotary century !

- With the good help, encouragement, support and coordination of RI and its districts, supported always better also by TRF, RAGs, with their unique global network of capable and motivated Rotarians, will Lead the Way, greatly contributing towards the Rotary Clubs' always more efficiently and best fulfilling the object of Rotary !

Marco Kappenberger
Chair – Environment Fellowship


Observations on the Concept – Pre June 2005
These observations were made by interested Rotarians prior to the time that 2005 Ad Hoc Committee met and made its recommendation to the Board. This Committee chaired by PRIP Jim Lacy recommended the creation of the Rotarian Action Group program under a new umbrella program called Global Networking Groups. The original concept name from then RID John Eberhard was Registered Rotary Service Affiliates .

Registered Rotary Service Affiliates Responses

Mike Thacker
Dear Mark,
I have read RID John's proposal, and here are my comments.
I apologise for not responding earlier about the RRSA proposal. I have been facing some health issues of my own recently. I trust that my thoughts have arrived in time to be recognised.
I think the creation of RRSAs makes a valuble step in the ares addressed by John in his report. RI officially recognising the areas of concern raised by cause-related Fellowships and dealing with them can only, I feel, help everyone.
I have only one issue to raise. Membership of an RRSA will be restricted to individual members of Rotary Clubs. Mt Question about this is that some potential members of RRSAs may not be members of Rotary Clubs. Some might be spouses of Rotarians, some might be potential new members of Rotary Clubs who have not yet joined and some might be Rotarians whose health has failed to the extent that they are no longer able to be members of Rotary Clubs.
Jacob
First, the name:
Registered Rotary Service Affiliates (RRSA), could be shortened to just Rotary Service Affiliates (RSA)...with the REGISTERED implied, when listed as a Rotary affiliate. This is simpler, an easier to remember "self-defining" term, and less of a "tongue twister".
However, I believe John's proposal makes a lot sense, and now is the time for RI to "move forward" with a new model to continue "doing good in the world", with willing volunteers.
Also, as a long time member of a fellowship and the Rotary Friendship Exchange program, (as well as being heavily involved with the development of the www.RotaryFellowships.org web site), I was very excited last year when RI opened the "fellowships" up to any group "wanting do to good" via a fellowship.
Although, this new breed of fellowship did not always represent a "good match" to the traditional fellowships mold.
Many of these "new fellowships" were much more focused on specific "service areas and needs" with like-minded Rotarians providing the resources to a specific stated objective. Hooray! When we have such a willing bunch of volunteers...encourage them. And, don't hamstring them with administrative minutia.
Unfortunately, however, because of these new fellowships greater need to raise funds (to support their goals and objectives), certain oversight and liability issues arise, (that do not effect the traditional "fellowships"). And, this proposal allows for the tailoring of these needs to fit these new entities, while allowing the traditional fellowships to continue to grow in an unencumbered manner (as the Stamp Collectors, who can not afford the required "liability insurance" that was initially mandated for ALL fellowship).
If the proposal is adopted, then I assume the "service and medical" type "fellowships" would be moved over to the new RSA model entities.
Finally, I question (as did Jacob Taurins) as to WHY "Rotarians ONLY" would be allowed to be members of a RSA. There are many "willing volunteers" out there looking for the opportunity "to serve" their fellowman (but not able or willing to come to weekly club meetings). I see them as a minority of the demographics of the RRSA's, with Rotarians clearly in the forefront, but let the family of Rotary be inclusive rather than exclusive.
Yours in Rotary Service,
Mike Thacker

Harold Shantz
Mark;
 I am responding to the proposal put forward to form RRSA's. I find myself very much in agreement with the sentiment expressed by Mike Thacker. I am in agreement with pursuing this direction, on the condition that it would not affect the fellowships such as ours, (International Fellowship of Curling Rotarians). Our fellowship is only organized to provide an opportunity to compete in a sport that we all enjoy. It has no fund raising function. Could you provide some clarification on this point?

Dear Mark

Firstly, let me express our condolences for the tragedy that has struck your nation and its people. The devastation is so extensive that it is unimaginable.
As requested I am responding, as a member of the Rotary Fellowships Committee, to the issues you raised in recent emails. I have reviewed the emails, including the document entitled "Registered Rotary Service Affiliates". It appears that the issues arising concern fellowship groups that go beyond mere fellowship to raise money and provide service.
Based on the information at hand, I have concluded the problem is not the vocational and recreational fellowship groups, but rather the cause related fellowship groups.
The cancellation of our insurance and the requirement for the fellowships to provide indemnification agreements is widely opposed for good legal reasons.
These moves have the possibility of causing fellowships to fold or to start operating outside of Rotary. As a member of the Fellowships Committee I oppose both the cancellation of insurance and the indemnification requirement.
I have the following additional comments.
Has R.I. considered sharing the insurance costs with the fellowships. This would no doubt be better than forcing fellowships to obtain their own insurance, which in fact may not even be possible, or the cost prohibitive.
R.I. needs to tailor its approach by finding suitable solutions for those cause related groups that have been identified as having undue risks, rather than sweeping all the fellowships under a new policy.
Additional criteria need to be developed around the "Application for Recognition as a Rotary Fellowship".
On a personal note I have belonged to a recreational fellowship for 23 years and would be very disappointed to see it disappear because we were forced to personally indemnify R.I. (Our fellowship gets together once every two years for a curling competition)

We have also been asked to comment on other issues as outlined by Jesse Allerton. My comments are as follows:

1. Circularization Policy Agree
2. Cooperatice Relationship Policy Agree
3. Obtaining Funding from Other Organizations Agree
4. Criteria for Recognition Based on my experience as a commitee member since 2004, it is an area that needs development after some of the issues currently before
the R.I Board have been dealt with.

Respectfully submitted

Harold Shantz, R.I. Fellowships Committee Member and Secr.-Treas. International Fellowship of Curling Rotarians



Bill Rowlings and PP Kris Klugman, Australia

To: John Eberhard
From: Bill Rowlings and PP Kris Klugman, Australia (with interests in the Polio Survivors (PSA) Fellowship, and Rotary Australia Centenary Exhibition)

Re: Ad Hoc Committee on Fellowships, RI Board, and RRSA's

Dear John

1. Congratulations on a great initiative, a good paper and some patchy proposed solutions.

2. Fundamentally, you are trying to solve the problem of an octopus not being able to make forward progress, by attempting to coordinate the individual activities of newly grown legs, and to do so by proscribing under legal rules how each leg will move.

An external management consultant brought in to analyze Rotary might ask whether it was possible that the ‘legs’ were actually doing the things that were innovative and appropriate to 21st Century activities, and whether the core body’s activities had fallen behind the times.

3. Your paper outlines a reasonable approach to an interim solution that, we assume, a nervous board believes it needs to ‘protect’ RI from litigation and from anyone/anything not board-sanctioned taking Rotary down ‘the wrong path’.

So the paper in essence outlines a defensive response to a set of facts and circumstances. We wonder whether looking at the identical glass of milk, seen as half full, might not suggest to the board that some of the ways and means of these innovative ‘affiliate’ entities might enhance the effectiveness of the core of the organization.

In other words, the proposed solutions in the paper stem from a central board wanting to exert power and control; we wonder what ‘solutions’ might look like if the core body was seized of the thinking that these new entities are overwhelmingly opportunities, not problems.

4. We would like to make some points that apply to organizing the structure/activities in Australia. We think that Australia has possibly unique, or at least unusual, opportunities in relation to Rotary organization, pro-activity and promotion. Many of our opportunities/issues might be shared with Canada, so you personally may well appreciate where we are coming from.

5. However, before getting to Australia-specific issues, we would like to comment on your proposed solutions. Please note that the critiques, and the commentary, are a view from the active coalface. They are meant to help you improve what we think could be an excellent, interim initiative…but it needs some fundamental re-thinking as to approach/attitude:

RRSA (‘arssa’): what an awful name. How about something less anal and less bureaucratic, more euphonic, like RAP (R. Activities Program) or RASP (R. Affiliate Service Program).




Suggested solution Comment
1. Inc. in Illinois, approved by Gen Sec of RI, in accord RI policy NO. For example, take RACE, the R. Australia Centenary Exhibition – why should we have incorporated in Illinois, for goodness sake? In general, in future, the fewer things incorporated or based in the USA the better. See 3. above.
If anything, incorporation should be in the least litigious and least costly nation/society in the world, not the most. Preferably, though, in the home country, or a country of convenience for $$$/legal reasons.
The Gen Sec should not ‘approve’ – let market forces apply. If 100 or 1000 people in three countries are interested in joining, then the entity can proceed. Prevent more power going to GS/RI.
2. Dues to RI on numbers in entity NO. The people in the entities you are trying to corral are the most active, go-getting, best Rotarians we have. Why double-penalize your best members, by making them pay dues twice? There should not be double taxation but - if there were - a better approach would be to ‘double-tax’ Rotarians who are NOT members of these active entities.
This suggested solution, by itself, indicates that the overall approach is to contain, rather than empower. What a shame, what lost opportunity.

3. Assess own risk, secure insurance coverage YES, sensible. But the insurance cost will be much greater if incorporation is in Illinois, rather than in Botswana or Victoria.
Maybe we need a ‘Bahamas’ RI shell for insurance & other reasons? Or Canberra, Australia. Why not?
4. Provide a hold-harmless statement YES sensible, but in practical terms, if the proverbial hits the fan, not worth the paper on which it is writ.
5. Restricted to R. members YES and NO. Suggest the wording should be that ‘FULL’ membership is restricted to R. members (but that other grades of membership are open to appropriate people/entities).
6. Be a licensed vendor for (ROTARY) materials…, remit 10% to TRF NO. We have inserted ‘Rotary’ before materials, in which case a %age return to Rotary is sensible. But not TRF, unless it is TRF product. TRF might be considered by a management consultant to be a sheltered workshop, overdue for a fundamental review of all its programs, and the way clubs breast-feed it, possibly to the detriment of other potential initiatives.
If an entity designs/produces its own ‘badged’ material, perhaps including the R. logo, the entity should be entitled to any profit (with maybe a case for a licensing fee being paid to R., but not to TRF).


7. Recognized for matching Grants, 3-H Grants NO. This is control by backdoor stealth. The minute an entity takes such a grant; it comes under the uncertain, fluky hand of District Governors, and further RI control. Any entity would be crazy to so limit itself for money that it could raise itself, more quickly and more easily, with fewer strings.
8. Eligible to register as R. Volunteers and receive grants. NO. For exactly the same reasons as immediately above. This suggestion appears to be a control device.
9. Able to circulate OWN MEMBERS and outside sources provided they get individual DG approval. NO. An entity can circulate its OWN MEMBERS whenever it likes, surely.
As to trying to get DG approval, that is a minefield of time-wasting, bureaucratic incompetence by a significant percentage of Dig’s – we personally have been through exactly this process in Australia with 23 DG's in the past 12-24 months, and it does not work in practical terms. We guarantee that to be a fact. The entire DG system needs major surgery.
10. No circulating Rotarians for money YES, agreed this is sensible.

11. Recognized in RI directory;
authorized to create its own website YES to Directory
‘Authorized to create its own website’: Of course an entity should be able to create its own website, with or without RI Board, DG, or any other approval. Again, this clause suggests that the document is more about control than proactively using these entities to further the works of R.
12. Subject to policy re RI marks Yes.
13. Subject to the cooperative entities policy of RI Unable to comment. What is the ‘cooperative entities policy’? Where do we find it? To what does it apply now?
14. Report to GS annually, including sponsorship detail YES…but this will become a nonsense, because who in RI is competent to ‘assess’ these reports each year. You’ll have to add 2 staff to RI just for this purpose! And then what??? What would/will RI do as a result???
15. File a financial report annually. YES…but this is overkill, as it would be a requirement of incorporation.
15. Compliance grandfathered Yes, but perhaps 2-3 years for conformity is more practical – some entities will have to hold AGM's to comply, which may involve at least one cycle (up to 23 months), in terms of giving notice, meeting, etc.

We hope the above thoughts help your deliberations. We counsel that an assumption that the RI board is in the right, and that people and entities doing innovative things away from the certainly historic, and possibly anachronistic, early 20th C management model of RI are wrong, and need to be curtailed and reined in.

There must be newer corporate management models that might be considered for Rotary/RI governance in the 21st Century. Might not the second 100 years usefully start with a fundamental re-evaluation of the status quo? Please see below for an Australian option.

RE Australia, and similar situations:

For a country like Australia, with large area and limited numbers, there is opportunity being wasted because Rotary insists on operating within a district structure, rather than shaping appropriate Rotary activities to the way the nation (that is, the logical geographic boundary) is structured and operates.

For many situations and projects, an Australia-wide approach would make practical, economic, and communication sense. We have national newspapers, national TV networks, national radio conglomerates…but Rotary is not structured to interact appropriately with these important conduits of Rotary messages.

There is enormous duplication in having to approach 23 different district governors to try to get a ‘national’ approach on any issue or project. You can virtually guarantee that one (or more likely perhaps 3-5 DG's) will have unique, individualistic approaches or thoughts, and will prevent reaping the benefits of a national program or project. In Australia’s case, the nation is a continent, one of six major divisions of the world.

We believe Australia needs a Rotary structure that can empower, endorse, ‘approve’ and – particularly – add value to projects and programs better planned and managed nationally than by district or club operating without the benefit of combined action.

It is no surprise that, when RI wanted to trial a major advertising campaign a few years ago, it chose Australia (and Canada). One of the reasons for the choice was undoubtedly the homogenous nature of Rotary within those countries, and the greater impact advertising could have across a nation, rather than organizing the advertising by district.

RI’s own actions in relation to advertising seem to prove the point we are making.

Rotary districts do not represent sensible geographic or administrative boundaries within a large nation like Australia. For example, in Adelaide, the capital of the State of South Australia, there are basically two districts splitting the metropolitan area to achieve an outcome of urban clubs being mixed with rural clubs. Great for Rotary administration perhaps, senseless for practical program management, citywide projects and communication with the metropolitan public.

The same holds true for virtually all our capital cities in Australia.

We propose that Australia has:

a. A national Australian committee to consider, endorse and authorize projects that would be better run on a national basis
- for example, the Rotary Australia Centenary Exhibition, Model United Nations Assembly, National Youth Science Forum, Australian Rotary Corporate Alliance Program, Adventures in Citizenship, Rotary Youth Leadership Awards, Rotary Youth Program of Enrichment, etc.

b. That the national committee has a membership of something like:
- 2 District Governors,
- 2 representatives of club presidents/secretaries,
- 3 ordinary Rotary members of under 5 years standing, devoid of titles, double initials, or any of the other paraphernalia that comes with age in Rotary, and
- 1 representative of the Rotary Down Under magazine
- 3 ‘outside’ representatives, all non-Rotarians, all under the age of 30.

If this suggestions starts to find favour, then operating rules could be drawn up. Basically, though, the committee would be charged with promoting Rotary on a national basis by actions and words. Clubs, Districts, groups of Rotarians could apply to it for project/program ‘endorsement’.

We envisage two direct outcomes;

i. a maximum of 10 national projects/programs running at any one time, but usually restricted to no more than 5;

ii. one of the committee (probably the chair, but not necessarily so) being the designated ‘Australian spokesperson’ for Rotary, to help give the organization a national face and name, which it sadly lacks in terms of representation on non-government organization (NGO) national committees, in dealing with the Federal Government, in the media, etc.

(signed)

Regards…PP Kris Klugman and Bill Rowlings, RC Canberra Burley Griffin, Australia

PS: We have provided our thoughts and feedback to you because you were the only Director of RI to respond to our communication a year ago on the Rotary Australia Centenary Exhibition (RACE)…that opens next week (9 December 2004), by the way.

Also, please note that we have no interest in any position on any Rotary body at any level ever in future – so that we have no personal axes to grind, or Rotary self-promotion to engage in, in relation to what is said above


John Hemmant

Thank you for your proposal John that I have also passed on to some other PDG's on our Long Range Planning Committee. I expect they will respond to you directly.

In principle I believe that the Social and Fellowship of Rotary is critical to its well-being. The opportunity to broaden our knowledge about living in other parts of the world enables us to be better able to understand the way other people live, their problems, their dreams and the challenges they face. It can come as quite a surprise when it can be
quite different from our own. I think it is critical however when World Community Service comes into play. My own experience is that this personal contact through Rotary Fellowship adds dependability, enthusiasm and satisfaction when you know your counterpart and the challenges he/she faces. In my case it was in South Africa in District 9270.

Encouraging the Fellowship contacts should be easier through a more formal association like RRSA should help and it would be easier to identify those members who have a real interest in Rotary beyond there borders.

This can also apply to making Fellowship connections with clubs in other Provinces and perhaps your clubs could share a project, particularly after becoming friends. A formal membership in RRSA would identify those interested and this would be a start.

I also am concerned that many smaller "Big City Clubs" are facing a major challenge. The demands on their time working has increased and employers are less likely to allow time to attend their Rotary meeting and many are not members in the community where they live, but where they work. Many in our small club are self-employed. However developing a connection with a third world club through a RRSA might become attractive. Certainly we like to do things as a group and this is the glue that keeps us active.
Incidentally we are considering a new non member attachment called"Friends of Rotary" These are people who help us with our projects, are interested in our activities but are unuble to commit the time (and perhaps money) to become a club member. We are one of the few clubs that are authorised to try new ways. This is still back to the theme that fellowship is the driver.

I am not in a position to comment on the formal structure of RRSA but do feel that availablility to Insurance coverage would be important, but I also understand the cost factor when older members travel.

I hope this helps John and I wish you and Fran a wonderful Christmas and
a rewarding 2005.

John


Sharon Cyr, Manager, RI Programs Division

Rotary International
1560 Sherman Avenue
Evanston, IL 60201
www.rotary.org

Dear Director Eberhard:

Andrew McDonald shared a copy of your Registered Rotary Service Affiliates proposal with me, in which you requested his feedback, as my area works most closely with the fellowships, the RI Fellowships Committee, and the RI Board Committee on Fellowships. Susan Schneider will be working with Director David Morgan on developing an advanced memorandum for the committee, and we will be sure to include reference to and a copy of the materials you have provided here.

Your proposal addresses many of the issues that I believe the committee will discuss in the context of the philosophical debate about what the purpose and scope of the Rotary Fellowships program should be. I had a few questions when reading your proposal that committee members may have as well.

1. If the Rotary Fellowships program was to return to its recreational/vocational focus (bottom of you page 1), would fellowships be permitted to conduct any of the activities that RSSA would be established to conduct (service activities, fundraising, cooperative relationships, etc.)? Why or why not?

2. Would RRSAs be eligible for booth space at the RI Convention similar to fellowships?

3. Concerns have been raised in the past that groups of this nature conflict with task forces and committees appointed by the President. I would recommend expanding on the point you raise on page 2 about how an RRSA can accomplish something that committees and task forces do not. I would also recommend including a provision in your proposal about how RRSAs and task forces or committees with the same focus should work together.

4. In point 2 of the proposal, you have the RRSAs paying dues to RI on the same basis as clubs, with the Board setting annual per capita dues. Do you mean the RI Board or the RRSA Board? What services would RI provide in exchange for these dues? Could RRSAs collect independent dues of their members for their administrative costs? Would this inhibit the independence of these groups?

5. In point 5, membership is restricted to Rotarians. Some groups may be interested in expanding this to include Rotaractors and spouses.

6. Point 7 would need to be approved by the Trustees.

7. Point 8 is not necessary. Rotarians and non-Rotarians may register as Rotary Volunteers so any member of an RRSA would be able to register. TRF Funding is a separate matter, with separate qualifications for Individual Grants or district simplified grants. If the RRSA member is a Rotarian, spouse, Rotaractor, or qualified Foundation Alumni, he or she can apply for an individual grant. However, for district simplified grants, each district establishes their own guidelines for use of the funds, so the Board could not automatically grant eligibility to members of an RRSA.

8. Are you recommending that RRSA become a new structured program? If yes, what support and services would the general secretary provide to these groups? How would RRSAs interact with clubs and districts? In your document, RRSA is sometimes referred to as an official program, an unofficial program, a Rotary entity, or compared to items of the menu of service opportunities.

Please note that there were a few minor inaccuracies in your document that may lead to some confusion:

1. With respect to the draft policy for cooperative relationships (C-2 from the November 2004) requiring fellowships to notify the general secretary when seeking financial assistance from other organizations in excess of US$25,000, on the bottom of page 3 you state that at least two groups have raised funds by avoiding RI policy. However, since there is not any current policy, no fellowships groups are in violation. Additionally, on the bottom of page 6 you say that an unintentional result of this policy would impact fellowship groups with large administrative budgets such as yachting or flying. As long as these groups do not get their administrative budgets from outside organizations as grants in excess of US$25,000, it would not apply.

2. On page 3, please note that the WCS Resource Network was not a fellowship--it was a pilot project until 1997 when it was discontinued by the Board. The general secretary recommended to the Rotarians who had been active in the WCSRN that they form a fellowship, and they received recognition as the Humanitarian Services Resources Fellowship. Also, there have been no applications for an "International Service" fellowship--I believe the one you are referring to is the "Peace" proposed fellowship. This raises an important point for the Board to consider with the current fellowship policy, any group meets the criteria, but there is sometimes inconsistency in who is granted recognition. (For example, hunting met the criteria but was not recognized).

3. On page 5-6, you list non-club organizations functioning outside of policy. This list includes many different types of groups, some of which are completely independent organizations with no Rotary affiliation, and may cause confusion among the committee and others who received your proposal. Most of these groups are in complete compliance with all RI Board policy. For clarification, I've grouped them according to type:

Type A--Independent Non-profit Organization with loose Rotary affiliation (in many cases started by Rotarians, incorporated as 501C3)
* Rotaplast
* Interplast (I believe this is what you meant by cleft palate repair, although that is what Rotaplast does too.)
* Hunger Plus and Shelter Box (Disaster Relief programs on your list)

Type B--Independent Non-profit Organization involved in a Board approved cooperative relationship with Rotary International. These are NGOs that often work with Rotary clubs locally, but were not started by Rotarians, and are not Rotary entities.
* United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
* International Reading Association
* Goodwill Industries International

Type C--Rotary club, district or multi-district projects that have come to the attention of the Board recently because of improper usage of the Rotary Marks or other issues
* Rotary Yoneyama Memorial Foundation
* RADAR
* Rotary Camp
* Australian Rotary Corporate Alliance Program
* Paul and Jean Harris Home Foundation
* Program Rotablind

If you have any questions about these observations, please let me know.



Tin Tin Raschid

Sorry for the delay in sending this. I was out of time. Difficult to stay home when you are semi retired.

Thanks to RID John for his proposal.

Here are my queries:

1. Are we going back to " Vocational & Recreational Fellowships"?

2. Where does the Medical Fellowships" fit in?

3. Will the " Service Fellowships" be operating within WCS?

4. How will the main issue of "Fund raising" addressed.

I agree with Mike Thacker. The name should not be a tongue twister. The 'Rotary Service Affiliates" should be sufficient.

I do not agree with his idea of opening to non Rotarians. If someone is interested in "Service", he or she should be encouraged to be a Rotarian. What percentage of Rotarians come to weekly meetings anyway ( except for a few of us)?

With all "Best wishes for A Merry Christmas and A Very Happy New Year"



PDG Ray Taylor

Strategic Plan for Rotary. Surely it extends beyond 4 years. Fellowships offer new avenues for growth, not the least of which would be providing service to the world’s polio survivors; some of whom have not yet been born.
This not too subtle snub of PSA has nothing to do with Fellowships in general. On the basis of the information you have presented your RFA proposal appears to be the most likely to insure that Rotary “senior leaders” would actually begin to grasp the possible opportunities for Rotarians and that the “leadership” of Rotary would actually support them in word and deed.
I know your submission is already in the hands of the Directors who have been appointed to the Committee. I hope it did include Polio Survivors and that the typist caught the error of listing Dental Volunteers twice…ray
In any case, please accept my thanks for your efforts and the wish for good luck as well as the possibility of some open minds
Ray
--------------------------


Registered Rotary Service Affiliates
RI Director John Eberhard Proposal, November 2004

Comments of Ray Taylor (PDG7690)
Chairman Polio Survivors & Associates Fellowship

The comments below do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Directors of PSA (above) but are based upon personal experience and perception after several years of Fellowships Committee experience.

1. The proposal speaks to a marketing need and responds to the dictum: “See the need” “Fill the need”. (See page 9, second paragraph under “The Results”)
2. Fellowships in their current definition respond to the First, Third and Fourth “Object of Rotary”: “…acquaintance as an opportunity for service”; “…the application of the ideal of service in each Rotarian’s personal…life”; “…The advancement of international understanding, goodwill, and peace through a world fellowship…united in the ideal of service”.
3. They meet the elements of the 4-Way Test.
4. The issue before the RI BdDir may be to reexamine our product and our method of delivery.
5. Based upon the assumption that our product is SERVICE (at least for the past 80 years) it is reasonable to assume that our method of delivery of this service should be examined to be sure we had adopted a viable and effective method.
6. The RRSA proposal is recognition that today’s market offers opportunities to utilize the time and talent of Rotarians who have special interests in special needs.
7. The establishment and operation of the Fellowships website www.rotaryfellowships.org is an example of a grass roots recognition of a “need” and the way to fill it. This was done and is operated at no cost to Rotary.
8. The key issue in the success of any idea or program is to have a “sponsor”. RRSA would provide an “official” imprinteur, that Fellowships have lacked in the past.
9. The proposal recognizes the importance of “risk management”. The deciding factor must be the reward to be gained by those in need balanced by the perceived risk to RI. This cannot be avoided regardless of any path taken or not taken.
10. The overwhelming success of Polio Plus is the best example of Rotary’s ability to reach out of other organizations in the world to achieve significant goals. The RRSA proposal recognizes both the need and the ability to achieve great things through world-wide cooperation.
11. The By-laws of our Polio Survivors and Associates Fellowship recognizes that our success depends upon working with people and institutions already in the field of helping polio survivors. P.J. Abdul Kalam, president of India recognizes the “need” upon which PSA is built in his comments (page 8, December issue “The Rotarian”: “Concerned that not enough is being done to alleviate the suffering of those who are already stricken by polio (he) encouraged the private sector to team up with government to improve the lives of those for whom the eradication initiative is too late.”
Comments regarding Page 8 – “The Solution”

A. In general it appears that most of the 16 items would be both feasible and helpful, and I am in agreement except for questions and comment concerning the following:
B. # 3 This seems vague…I believe RI must assume whatever risk there may be. (See item 8. above)
C. # 5 This item is not in compliance with the idea of the “extended family of Rotary. Many of us believe we need to “reach out and welcome” rather than restrict. (It would negate the whole premise of PSA…see 10 above)
D. # 6 Fellowships do not like the idea of paying an additional 10% for apparel or promotion items for their own membership development and would resist or ignore. A case could be made for items used in fund-raising, but this would be vague at best and probably ignored.

Additional Observations and Suggestions

1. My old Webster’s Dictionary lists 10 entries or uses for the word “fellowship” and by extension (s). Fellowships are like the definition of Art…it is in the eye of the beholder. We do not need an additional definition, we need a new way to deliver our product (service).
2. The traditional Recreational and Vocational Fellowships do not need RI staff support to survive and grow. They need recognition but not support. The custom of providing space at district, zone and international meetings should be encouraged and expanded. At no significant cost to Rotary.
3. The greatest strength of Fellowships or “interest groups” is their relevance to the lives of the individuals involved and of the perceived benefit or value derived from their association with their peers.
4. Rotarians are people who join, contribute, participate, or commit to because they believe they will derive a benefit. This is a major contributing factor to the rise in membership turnover. No relevance; no benefit; no member.
5. Page 1 of December issue of “The Rotarian” features the President’s Message and in the last three paragraphs he reiterates what he has said before, that Rotary helped to “open doors” and he benefited from the fellowship and new friends he made there.
6. Past RI President, Cliff Dochterman uses the phrase, “The fellowship of Rotary is friendship at its best.” Fellowships and “interest groups” are the essence of friendship and understanding, which our founder Paul Harris said is the element that holds it together.
7. I suggest the RI BdDir give comprehensive consideration to John Eberhard’s proposal and to act upon the idea of improving our model or method of delivery of out product – SERVICE.

Submitted for consideration by

Ray Taylor, 6 December 2004



Frank Devlyn

It was good to get your Dec. News about the Rotary International Membership Coordinators. It is good to see so many Proactive RIMIC's setting a good example for RIMZC's as well as District Membership Coordinators. Without a doubt President Glen Estess is proud of all you are doing to promote membership & retention in this our Centennial Year.

Good to see that many of you are also promoting both my Frank Talk books that can be ordered at www.franktalkbooks.com or www.frankdevlyn.org

All of you know that besides promoting Our Rotary Foundation, I am part of your team effort in promoting Rotary as well as Retention. That is the reason all of you get very special prices for the above Frank Talk books whose major reason for being was & continues to be to promote Rotary Membership & Retention. Somehow we have to get the message out to The World of Rotary that we can not be "Pennywise & Pound Foolish". In today's world where companies pay headhunters 3 months salary when they get the right person, it should be a message to all of us that we have to also invest to
get qualified persons into Rotary. In my personal opinion Rotary Clubs have to take time to talk to qualified candidates, give them a Frank Talk book, and not charge them or the Rotarians who invite them for their first visits to our clubs.

Let me tell you that I never miss a chance to promote the benefits of Rotary Membership.

Last week I was asked to be a keynote speaker at the University of Mexico's School of Business Administration to a group of about 700. They wanted me to speak on The How, Why of the Success of The Devlyn Optical Group in Mexico & Central America. I stressed the importance of the following concepts: Changing With The Times, Having a Passion in the services we provide our customers, having a goal of making Customers For Life. I think many of you will find that these concepts are also applicable to Rotary.
As I always do, I also spoke on the benefits of belonging to Rotary. I suggested that they the students consider belonging to Rotaract as they would have contact with Rotarians who could give them ideas on how to Get Ahead.

I also suggested that they strive to occupy a top position in whatever field of business that they get into and the benefits of having a goal of trying to join a Rotary Club that would give them added Credibility in their community & among other business & professionals persons.

On Dec. 8th. I was asked to speak to the Intl. Convention of Dale Carnegie Franchisee's & Key Executives in Can Cun (Mexican Caribbean). This is a well known Organization that promotes courses that help people have more confidence in themselves. As many of you know, I many times recommend to Club President Elects & other club officers that they take one of the Dale Carnegie Courses that will help them or at least read the book How to Win Friends & Influence People as I did over 40 years ago. Once again this group of almost 1000 persons wanted me to speak on how the Dale Carnegie Philosophy had helped me personally to move The Devlyn Optical Group to occupy one of the leading positions worldwide. Once again, I did not miss the opportunity to promote Rotary. I told them that yes..Dale Carnegie was one of the different reasons I had been able to get ahead but....What after Dale Carnegie??????

I told them that many of them who were owners of a Dale Carnegie Franchise or held a Key position in a Franchise could be candidates to join a local Rotary Club. Their belonging showed a sincere interest in being part of their community plus the added benefit of Additional Credibility.

I told them that not all those who take their courses have the qualifications to belong to Rotary which basically are having a key position in the companies they work for or in their own profession or business. I made them see that for the graduates of their courses who have the above characteristics, Rotary had much to offer. Yes, I did recommend my Frank Talk book on the benefits of belonging to Rotary.

Well Amigos, I have given you an update on my promoting Rotary Membership carried out in the last week. I hope the above serves as an example that we should always be on the outlook to find ways to promote Rotary Membership at outside events to which we might be invited.

Keep up the good work promoting Rotary in a way that enhances Rotary's image & at the same time is in accord with the good taste & culture of your area.

I hope that all of you are personally proactively recommending at every opportunity the reasons we should all support our Rotary Foundation with added & needed donations to carry out more humanitarian work.

Gloria Rita joins me in wishing all of you Happy Holidays at this special time of the year.


Please continue to Create Awareness & Take Action by sharing ways for Rotary
Clubs to Celebrate Rotary.

Your Amigo Frank Devlyn

There is so much information to digest in the detailed paper on Registered Rotary Service Affiliates given to us by Director John Eberhard.

My first impressions that we are possibly making things too complicated & we should just trust Rotarians like Rotary Clubs to do what is Right. Then I see that we have to protect Rotary & then I say to myself......Protect Rotary from doing Good Things??? In today's world I suppose we have to do this protecting.

It is about time that Rotary Intl. stopped putting its head like an Ostrich in the sand. Sometimes I wonder if our Senior Leadership of the many wonderful things that Rotary District projects are doing & that includes Fellowships. Our Senior Leadership on an individual basis knows about many of these things when they visit different areas of the world & they usually congratulate all the Rotarians involved. Example here in my country of Mexico the nine districts have come together from several years back to
combat increased delinquency by supporting a program of Neighborhood Watch called Vecino Vigilante in Spanish. This program has even had support from Our Rotary Foundation in the form of Grants for Plastic Signage that is put up in front of homes, businesses, etc. If we sent this program to the Board of R.I. we would be lost in a maze of some Not Understanding, etc. We who have to live with this problem are doing all we can to combat crime. Just a few days ago I had a meeting with the President of Mexico who supports this program as do other key cabinet members. The Rotarians will join forces with all the Scouts plus hundreds of other groups to show the citizens of Mexico how to come together block by block. Is everybody in Rotary Mexico for it..........NO......but the vast majority is supportive. We have been the catalyst to possibly help the Mexican Govt. get money from the Interamerican Development Bank of Washington to help.

I can remember years back when knowledgeable well meaning Rotarians would
whisper....I believe that Rotary Club or district has a local foundation. We have found out that there are about 4000 from some estimates. These clubs that have local foundations are usually stronger than those that do not. We in the Rotary Foundation are looking for ways that we might get more help from them. An example is the Philadelphia Rotary Club Foundation that matched money for Polio Plus besides other projects with clubs in their district.

The mentioning of 25,000 dollars as having the necessity to report to the General Secretary does sound good but it way too low & would simply hold back many projects. As the incoming Chair of The Rotary Foundation I am astounded to know that we spend 2400 dollars to monitor a small grant of 2000 dollars. I am astounded to learn that we have 10 million dollars of money to use for Matching Grants but if we sent in the necessary grant requests our Foundation Staff tells us they do not even have the time to
look at them. I am trying to show that we sometimes make things that seem logical & then we find out it is just too complicated to monitor.

I trust John Eberhard & Ken Morgan who are apparently handling this complicated situation to do what is best for Rotary so we can move forward & not be tied down to carry out good Rotary work we can all be proud of.

When I digest more of this very detailed report, I will get back to all of you.

Happy Holidays to all my Amigos.

Please continue to Create Awareness & Take Action by sharing ways for Rotary
Clubs to Celebrate Rotary.


PDG Lee Hanson

John, this was an extremely well-thought-out proposal and obviously done with a great deal of research!

Are the efforts by these groups that you list on page six siphoning off dollars that would normally be put through clubs, districts and/or RIF efforts? It certainly seems a control of some kind must be established by Rotary to cause a better focus.

Certainaly I have never thought about the Rotary Recreational Fellowships, that I assumed were primarily hobbyists getting together with other hobbyists, turning
into fund-raising organizations outside of what Rotary clubs, districts and RIF do.

I do have a concern about the costs of Rotary International to oversee this new body and how it gets passed on to the general membership when it's now being covered by the entities themselves.

It sounds like RRSA would help get things back under control without creating too many hard feelings from the splinter groups.

Please keep me informed. Lee

Ray Taylor

Fred...

As the Chairman of the Rotary Vocational Fellowship of Law, I certainly hope someone has talked with you about the RI BdDir "concerns" about Fellowships; especial the part about "Liability"...if you are able to read all the way through this attached correspondence you will find Director John Eberhard's "trial balloon"...quite a number of people have weighed in on the subject and I will not burden you with them; however,
I wonder if it is time and/or appropriate for Rotary to deviate somewhat from the path of "non-political" to begin to investigate some sort of "hold harmless armor" for non-profits in the business of helping people who need help...my gut feeling is that there is presently no such protection...for example, the successful suits against church groups related to sexual misconduct...if the present administration is successful in funding "Faith Based" enterprises, surely this will escalate opportunity for "liability" unless some safeguards are
involved...

You will recall we went through this exercise some months ago in a slightly different context; however, the issue is basically the same..."who protects whom against what from whom", as we carry out our mission...as you know, most Fellowships have no resources other than their members and certainly none of them wants to find him or herself in
a personal liability situation which would be a disaster for all concerned...on the basis a "Fairness" alone, shifting liability downward does not get very close to the 4 Way Test...

Surely there is something more creative we can do than argue where the responsibility lies...and surely there is something more beneficial than paralysis of fear...

I am not empowered to take any particular action on this very difficult situation; however, if you feel you can contribute, I am sure John and Ken would be more than willing to hear your thoughts...

As you know from previous correspondence, the Polio Survivors Fellowship expects to have a "float" in the Centennial Parade...I am hoping RI has some kind of "single event coverage" for those of us who are trying to participate...

Thanks, and good luck, whatever...ray

----------------


I am encouraged to see that the Chair (Fellowships Committee) position has been elevated to an active Past RI Director, and equally pleased to see that there has been continuity built into the committee with terms of differing length…

With the strengthening of the Service aspects of groups of people with common interests by the formation of Rotary Action Groups, I hope that one of the early projects of the committee and the RI staff will be to address the refining, defining and resolution of the similarities and differences between these two groups…we are all aware that the RAGS will require a closer working relationship with RI than has been our past experience with Fellowships…while RAGS open a whole new set of opportunities for Rotary to carry out its purpose of service to those who welcome it, they offer some new challenges in their operation…

I appreciate the effort and commitment you have displayed in our beloved Fellowships movement and wish you well in your further service to Rotary…good luck to us all as we move to the next plateau

Ray Taylor



Frank Devlyn

From:
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 11:16 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Registered Rotary Service Affilate.doc

Dear Amigos:

There is so much information to digest in the detailed paper on Registered Rotary Service Affiliates given to us by Director John Eberhard.

My first impressions that we are possibly making things too complicated & we should just trust Rotarians like Rotary Clubs to do what is Right. Then I see that we have to protect Rotary & then I say to myself......Protect Rotary from doing Good Things??? In today's world I suppose we have to do this protecting.

It is about time that Rotary Intl. stopped putting its head like an Ostrich in the sand. Sometimes I wonder if our Senior Leadership of the many wonderful things that Rotary District projects are doing & that includes Fellowships. Our Senior Leadership on an individual basis knows about many of these things when they visit different areas of the world & they usually congratulate all the Rotarians involved. Example here in my country of Mexico the nine districts have come together from several years back to combat increased delinquency by supporting a program of Neighborhood Watch called Vecino Vigilante in Spanish. This program has even had support From Our Rotary Foundation in the form of Grants for Plastic Signage that is put up in front of homes, businesses, etc. If we sent this program to the Board of R.I. we would be lost in a maze of some Not Understanding, etc. We who have to live with this problem are doing all we can to combat crime.
Just a few days ago I had a meeting with the President of Mexico who supports This program as do other key cabinet members. The Rotarians will join forces with all the Scouts plus hundreds of other groups to show the citizens of Mexico how to come together block by block. Is everybody in Rotary Mexico for it..........NO......but the vast majority is supportive. We have been the catalyst to possibly help the Mexican Govt. get money from the Interamerican Development Bank of Washington to help.

I can remember years back when knowledgeable well meaning Rotarians would
whisper....I believe that Rotary Club or district has a local foundation.
We have found out that there are about 4000 from some estimates. These clubs that have local foundations are usually stronger than those that do not. We in the Rotary Foundation are looking for ways that we might get more help from them. An example is the Philadelphia Rotary Club Foundation that matched money for Polio Plus besides other projects with clubs in their district.

The mentioning of 25,000 dollars as having the necessity to report to the General Secretary does sound good but it way too low & would simply hold back many projects. As the incoming Chair of The Rotary Foundation I am astounded to know that we spend 2400 dollars to monitor a small grant of 2000 dollars. I am astounded to learn that we have 10 million dollars of money to use for Matching Grants but if we sent in the necessary grant requests our Foundation Staff tells us they do not even have the time to
look at them. I am trying to show that we sometimes make things that seem
logical & then we find out it is just too complicated to monitor.

I trust John Eberhard & Ken Morgan who are apparently handling this complicated situation to do what is best for Rotary so we can move forward & not be tied down to carry out good Rotary work we can all be proud of.

When I digest more of this very detailed report, I will get back to all of you.

Happy Holidays to all my Amigos.

Please continue to Create Awareness & Take Action by sharing ways for
Rotary Clubs to Celebrate Rotary.


Your Amigo in Mexico City,

Frank Devlyn
Trustee, The Rotary Foundation 2002-2006
Past Rotary International President 2000-2001
Click on to www.frankdevlyn.org to keep up on my latest and do consider belonging to the www.rotarianseyecarefellowship.org


Ray Taylor

From: raytaylor
Sent: Lunes, 29 de Noviembre de 2004 02:14 p.m.
To: PSA; Frank Devlyn; Ray Klinginsmith
Cc: Ken Morgan; John Eberhard; Mark K. Y. Wong
Subject: Registered Rotary Service Affilate.doc

All...as a Directoror Advisor of PSA your advice and counsel is very important to the best interests of PSA and of all Fellowships...RI Director, John Eberhard has asked for comment on the proposal to strengthen Fellowships by recognizing their inherent worth to RI and the the world we are trying to help...Director en Morgan is a Red Coat
classmate of Dave Heagerty's and mine as well as being a member of the International Polio Plus Committee and is very familiar with Fellowships and with PSA...your comments, suggestions, observations will be invaluable to the RI Board and other senior leaders as they seek to find the most appropriate and effective niche for "Rotarians with common interests"...I have been in contact with Directors John and Ken and Fellowships Committee Chair, Mark Wong, but I want to be sure we have a concensus before sumitting any more comment to John...there are no secrets here; so please share your comments with all of us, preferably in the next few days...before we get caught up in Holiday festivities...as always, thanks,and good luck to us all...ray



Cliff Dochterman

Thanks, John, for sending me a copy of your proposed report to the AD Hoc Committee on Fellowships, for my comments. My delay in responding does not indicate any disinterest in the topic, but merely the fact that I have been running around the past couple of months, talking about the Centennial to far too many Rotary meetings.
However, let me give you a few random comments after having read your proposal a couple of times. These are not in the order of importance, but merely as they come to mind.

General thoughts on Fellowships: It seems to me that the recreational, vocational and special interest Rotary Fellowships are rather fundamental to the first part of the Object of Rotary. Friendship, fellowship, acquaintanceship are all steps to service. Some of the pleasures of service come from working along with friends who have a common interest -- just as there is pleasure in seeing the satisfaction of one's efforts among those you serve. So, Fellowships are and should become evenmore a part of Rotary's future expansion and development. As a matter of fact, I would hope that the number and types of Fellowships would expand to manygroups with common interests -- sports, hobbies, interest in special kinds of service, common health conditions, common experiences, and other similar interests.

There is a whole segment of Rotarians who could get involved in the activities of Rotary through Fellowships. There are thousands of Rotarians who belong to small or medium sized clubs where the opportunity to talk with, share experiences, and find and enjoy common interests are extremely limited. But, a Fellowship can spread around the world, across borders and oceans to share Rotary experiences with new friends with a common characteristic interest.

Is Rotary activity model found only in individual Clubs? Certainly, much of the activity of Rotary is within individual clubs. But, we also find many districts with extensive levels of activity. In 1980, the debates on adopting the 3-H program clearly indicated that Rotary can undertake program far greater than any one club or district could handle. Those were hard fought debates, but the conclusion was that Rotary could be far more than just a club -- and thus the best example is the PolioPlus Program and all of its various ramifications. I don't think that the PolioPlus Program was "an exception" -- the 3-H program gave Rotary a new model to undertake "corporate programs" if that is the name one wishes to give. There have been several major 3-H programs with large scale corporate support – the PolioPlus Program is just the largest and longest enduring activity.

Are we splitting hairs when we discuss Rotary program entities? Perhaps this is just a bit of philosophy or twisting the meaning of words. I am always concerned when we
want to divide or segregate Rotary as "the menu of service opportunities" and"structured programs" and those which are not Rotary entities, and those which the RI Board supports and those which it doesn't. As I understand it, the menu of ten service opportunities are those which Rotary Boards have over the years "accepted" for the
program staff to administer. It is almost impossible to name an activity which in some respects couldn't be up within one of the 10 items. And yet, there are many activities of great humanitarian and service value being conducted by Rotary Clubs which apparently are not appropriately considered acceptable in some ways. In Australia we have, or did have, the FAIM (Fourth Avenue In Motion) to do international projects, but the Board never accepted the program, and yet it did great things. We have Rotaplast, Hungerplus, Gift of Life, Goodwill Industries, and others, all started by and involving many Rotarians, Clubs and Districts, but somehow there seems to be a shadow on these kinds of program being considered "acceptable" service opportunities. We have dozens of clubs and districts delivering wheelchairs to disabled individuals, but some feel this should not be considered a Rotary activity. We have programs for children, called Rotakids, youthact, or something, which is apparently not an accepted program. We have hundreds of Rotary Clubs sponsoring Scout troops, athletic teams, summer camps, but these are not necessarily on our accepted list.
We have clubs and districts sponsoring handicamps and schools for disabled individuals, but these are not specifically on the list of service opportunities. There are Rotarians sponsoring Meals on Wheels, Water wells, care for refugees and so many other kinds of activities, which are so socially valuable, but not endorsed by Rotary. The reason I raise these kinds of questions is that our attempt to divide programs which are within the "official programs" and "unofficial programs" becomes very hazy. For example, it may be difficult to draw clear distinctions between a recreational Fellowship of Runners and Physical Fitness, and a cause-related Fellowship of Rotarians with Physical Disabilities. I just wonder if we really need to make divisions, distinctions, and determine what is an acceptable entity and what is not?

Is a "service function" by a Fellowship necessary? I assume that some groups share their enthusiasm, knowledge, resources and interests -- and some don't. Does it really make a difference if a group is "project-minded" or not -- especially if the project is useful to somebody, and not harmful or destructive to others? From a practical standpoint, is there really harmful results merely if a project somewhat encroaches upon other activities? As, I see it, virtually all programs which clubs and districts engage encroach upon other activities -- district fundraising and dues affects club finances; Presidential Conferences affects district conference attendance; Foundation giving effects community project fundraising; district assemblies and PETS impact upon club finances; district committees and functions compete for club members time; the Permanent Fund contributions affect the Annual Programs Fund, etc. Our response must be -- Rotary is big enough to have tolerance for all, room for all, acceptance to the many interests and activities of a worldwide organization. We have and must continue to think in the largest possible scale if Rotary is to grow and reach our greater potentials.

Is a new Rotary entity necessary, such as RRSA? Frankly, I have a few doubts whether a new "unofficial program" is necessary.

As I read the proposed plan for Rotary Affiliates, I kept asking myself, "why is this needed?" Can't our whole program of recreational, vocational and special interest
Fellowships just expand and can't we be more tolerant of the activities of various groups of Rotarians? The rationale seems to me to be that many of our current senior leaders have on their hands two or three Fellowships which represent activities or philosophies which they disapprove, or feel that the groups are out of control. If this is the case, then why not address the problems with those specific Fellowships, and not generate a whole new unofficial program? On the other hand, can it not be recognize that in the wide wide-world of Rotary there will always be some very fine Rotarians who think somewhat different from others. I don't think that the RI Board will ever be able to design enough programs -- either officially or unofficially -- to meet the historically differences in the thinking of various cultures, religions, races, customs and interests of all Rotarians. So, why not move in the direction of an organization which has a tent large enough to cover all Rotarians -- and not just those which some Board in the future believes is acceptable or not. In other words, I would lean towards a position in which our Fellowships would be inclusive of all points of view, even those in which some feel a strong commitment, and not be limiting to ideas which are currently considered acceptable. If a group violates the policies of Rotary in their enthusiasm, then you deal with that problem -- but, I question whether the whole idea of International Rotary Fellowships of recreational, vocational and special interests should be re-directed. It seems that RRSA opens a door far greater than the current problems with a few Fellowships. I think you will have RRSA's far beyond your wildest imagination.

Fellowships provide a unique opportunity. I feel that you made a key point on page three, in which you note that "fellowships groups become increasingly popular because
there is no other Rotary entity that provides the scope or opportunity to address these issues of human need." To me, this is the fundamental point of why fellowships are
performing a valuable unit in the Rotary world. I would make effort to have far more tolerance of the Fellowships, rather than moving to some other structure.

Fundraising within Fellowships. To me this has never seemed to be a real problem. Rotary's mission is to serve in the community and in the world. It is quite possible
that Fellowships will be able to serve in a way that The Rotary Foundation is unable to handle. Sure, The Rotary Foundation is our major fund raising mechanism in Rotary. But, it is clear that the Foundation is not meeting the needs of many Rotarians and clubs.
Many groups are going outside the Foundation to achieve their objectives. If some worthy humanitarian, educational, social or health issue is being addressed, we should
be pleased, not distressed. Let's take the big picture. (I remember during the war in Bosnia in l992-93, we wanted to help refugees who had to flee their country -- and The
Rotary Foundation said there was no way they could help. So, we went to the Districts, and the Governors raised about $8 million in cash, goods and supplies in a matter
of two months to provide refugee relief in Croatia. And it is estimated that we saved the lives of 100,000 people from starvation and freezing that winter.) I realize that
when you are so close to the Foundation, that any funds raised by other groups are competition -- but the cause is still good and is within the spirit of Rotary.
Furthermore, I suspect that you will find that a very high percent of the members of Fellowships are the same people who give to support The Rotary Foundation.

Cause-related vs Special interests: I find that the report frequently uses the term "cause-related" groups which tends to place that term in a negative or zealot category. It seems to me that identifying these as Rotarians who have a "common or special interest" is a fairer or more accurate description. I am very much interested in prevention of drug abuse and disaster relief and the environment, but hardly think that I or my Rotary friends who share a similar interest are zealots, or have tremendous pent up energy or determination to promote these causes, if you wish to call it that.

The name Registered Rotary Service Affiliate? As you go ahead with the program, I hope that a new name will develop. It seems a bit awkward.

Alternate Solution: I suspect that what is really needed is listed in item 14 and 15 of your "Solution." If all Fellowships would report to the General Secretary annually on each of its activities, fundraising, costs, and membership, along with a financial statement, many of the problems would be covered.

Well, John, these are some of the comments. I have other thoughts about the various affiliate organizations and those with whom clubs and districts join in activities -- but
that is another subject.


Cliff




PDG Richard Clarke

Comments on the draft RRSA paper


John, thanks for giving me the opportunity to comment on your paper. I appreciate the time and thought you have given to this subject.

Let me start by saying I was quite surprised to learn of the concern amongst current and past board members with respect to the service related Fellowships. I was applauding the Board on allowing for more relevant Fellowships, while they would seem to be threatened by them. That is too bad.

Likewise I have found the increasing anxiety over liability somewhat puzzling. I will come back to that later.

For me service and fellowship are the yin and yang of Rotary. I believe the two should go together, always. So for me the notion of Fellowships that are just focused on fellowship, good times, and hedonistic pastimes always struck me as an oddity in Rotary. However I learned over time, that just as the early Rotarians quickly figured out – service is what gives meaning to Rotary, as have many of the Fellowships found a way to weave service into their fellowship activities. From my perspective that is the way it should be.

The vocational/professional Fellowships are a logical way to further the Vocational Avenue of Service. While others like ROTI have provided services of assistance to Club Service. Sill others as you note in your paper have added a service component, be it mission of mercy flights or disabled ski days or sailing programs for quadriplegics.

In a purist sense – I would argue that Fellowships that just focus on fellowship – don’t fit the Rotary model. However, I know that building international fellowship amongst Rotarians, however it happens, makes our organization much stronger. I am told that Rotarians who belong to Fellowships tend to stay in Rotary longer than those who don’t. That may or may not be the case – but intuitively it makes sense. I certainly can attest to my involvement in ROTI as having added Rotary friendships around the world.

I would equally have trouble with the flipside – that is Fellowships that just focus on a service activity without much attention to Fellowship. These run the risk of becoming just another form of a Rotary service program. However again, I recognize as your paper does, that Rotarians want to make a difference as Rotarians – and need linking organizations that can bring together Rotarians and Rotary clubs from around the world to work together.

Nevertheless, I believe that what has enabled Rotary to grow and sustain itself is the prime importance of the individual Rotary Club in Rotary. . I think that anything that takes away from the individual Rotary clubs as the focal point of Rotary runs the risk of being extremely detrimental to the long-term viability of Rotary. For that reason – our District has learned to stay away from District projects. We sometimes have District initiatives that a majority or occasionally all of our clubs support – but they are almost always joint club projects – the District may have been the catalyst and we may have a district committee – but the decision to participate is up to the club.

If we compete with clubs for time, talent and financial resources, we risk under-mining the viability and purpose of the individual Rotary club – which is central to Rotary.

Now to the matter at hand.

I think that your proposal to create a new class of organizations within Rotary is an intriguing idea.

I proposed forming the Fellowship for Mine Action because Rotarians were looking for a means to collaborate between various Rotary clubs and Rotarian started initiatives to join the global effort to rid the world of landmines and help those affected by them.

The Seattle conference had past a motion calling on RI to establish a task force – but as your paper notes, task forces have value to focus Rotary attention on an issue but not to really sustain a Rotary service program. An informal group has been started six months earlier to link existing Rotarians already involved in the issue. However to be sustainable over the longer term – a more robust organization and structure was required,

As the only vehicle open to us, was a Fellowship – we chose that route. However in doing so – we were determined that we would follow the rules for Fellowships. RFMA – has from the start, as set out in our purpose statement, precluded the Fellowship from mounting projects. We will work to engage Rotarians in the issue – help interested Rotarians and Rotary Clubs link with others and other Rotary organizations. Provide Rotarians with information and ideas but leave the actual doing up to them. However we need to have a fellowship side – which develops the international friendships on a personal level that Rotary is so famous for doing. We will have, like some other fellowships opted to have at least a biannual event at the annual RI convention.

In the case of our cause, to be an effective player in the global movement to eradicate landmines, we need to collaborate with like interested organizations. An umbrella organization like our Fellowship can play that role, where individual rotary clubs could not. However, we have understood from the start that we have to be very clear that we do not speak for Rotary International.

Which I think brings us to our first major issue. If Fellowships or the RRSA’s as you have proposed, are active on the world stage RI needs a clear set of policies and protocols about how these sub-Rotary organizations interact with the world community.
I certainly agree that there have to protocols and procedures around such matters as affiliations with non-Rotary groups, relationships with UN agencies, public relations, and the like. For instance, I have encouraged the US State Dept to organize a conference of their landmine action partners – they in turn have asked me to participate in the program – which I will do and make clear that I am not speaking on behalf of Rotary. I will let Evanston know – but I think there should be some specific protocols in place to ensure that Rotary is not mis-represented.


With close to a hundred Fellowships out there – and with the constant churn of leadership of Fellowships like the rest of Rotary – compliance based upon goodwill and intentions will not likely be enough.


I think there can be a real net gain for Rotary at least in terms of the public’s perception of what Rotary does in the world – if the Rotary affiliation is clearer than it is in some cases now. I would use the example of Mine-Ex a landmine action group started by Rotarians in Districts 1980, 1990 & 2000 about 10 years ago. You have no idea that it is a Rotary organization. Yet Rotary clubs in those districts have put considerable effort and money into landmine action through that channel. The world should know that – it is something we can all be proud of.

I am conflicted on the issue of Fellowships or the proposed RRSA – raising money for projects. On the one hand Rotarians have a lot of call on their personal giving and their own club and TRF fund-raising (depending on their culture) and I am not sure that other Rotary organizations should be making a direct claim. To my mind encouraging clubs and Rotarians to get involved in an issue, to start their own project or to support anther club’s project is different that campaigning for funds for a project started by a Fellowship or RRSA. It competes with the clubs for and the TRF for individual Rotarians finite financial contributions.

Yet, I realize that Fellowships have been organizing fund-raising campaigns for quite some time and have of course as you noted, done good work with those projects.

Also there are sources of Funds that Rotary clubs either do not have access to or are not tapping into on their own. An obvious example is CRCID. Although historically we got to CRCID by a different path – the reality now is that Rotary clubs don’t have direct access to CIDA foreign assistance funds. Without CRCID – that source of funding would not be available to Canadian clubs.

Likewise, our Fellowship has been able to tap into some US State Department support for building up our Fellowship infrastructure to increase our capacity to increase awareness of the issue – that money would not have been available to an individual club.

So in cases like that, neither CRCID nor we are competing with clubs we are actually adding to the resources available to Rotary. I am sure that other Fellowships have similar stories to tell.

I certainly agree that every Rotary entity has to be accountable for monies it raises and expends on behalf of Rotary. I agree that if the RSSA concept goes forward and whether it does or not – the Fellowships should have to file an annual financial statement with RI.

Many of the fellowships have local chapters of the association – at a district, regional, national or continental level. I have found in the short history of the RFMA - that we have had clubs requesting to join as a club rather than as individual Rotarians. We have required the latter, but if we were to have new service related organizations – I think provision should be explicitly be made for clubs and districts to join directly – don’t limit it to individual Rotarians. It makes absolute sense for the Fellowships, but not for a service vehicle.

The Fellowship rules require multi- country participation, at least to get initial approval – which is appropriate for the Fellowships. While that might also be a condition of the RRSA’s it would not recognize the reality of what already exists in terms of affiliate organizations. So while we might encourage and certainly allow for multi-district RRSA’s, I would not rule out single district ones.


On a related front – I don’t think the suggestion in your proposal that the affiliate organizations should have to incorporate in Illinois will work. I don’t actually see the point. For instance would you really want to go to the expense of incorporating CRCID in Illinois – would it still be legible for CIDA funding if it was. For Affiliates based in other countries be it the UK or India – I don’t think it makes any sense to require them to incorporate in the USA. This is an international organization – it is the fate of history that our headquarters is in the State of Illinois – but two –thirds of us are not Americans – many Rotarians don’t speak English. To require incorporation to start with is I would argue an unnecessary expense but to have to do it in the USA is I would argue unnecessary.

In the case of RFMA – so long as we do not incorporate – our banker BMO provides free banking services.

You raised the issue of circularization of clubs in your paper. I do think there should be some protocols in place. I read the Code of Policy closely before RFMA did some of it. I could see no rule that applied to the Fellowships – but I think there should be some. Mind you I think the should also apply to RI and the TRF too – the credit card mailings still annoy me.

On the risk management side, I think Rotary has been barking up the wrong tree. I have not seen any risk assessment dealing with either the activities of the clubs nor the Fellowships. However, if there is such an assessment, then I think RI should be working with the clubs and the Fellowships to ensure that they change actually begin to manage and reduce the risk. All insurance does is buy financial protection to lessen or avoid the liability of the risk. Just buying insurance makes no sense in the business world – it makes no more sense in the volunteer world. If we have a risk problem – we need to manage it – and yes perhaps insure what we cannot manage – but jumping to insurance rather than managing the risk is an expensive option.

For example as a Rotarian involved in the RFMA – the biggest risk I am exposed to on a daily basis is the keyboard I am writing on. Having spent my day at a computer – spending my evenings aggravates my wrist injuries. On the other hand, the traditional Fellowships should actually be of bigger concern – Fly-ins, scuba diving trips, ski meets etc – those kind of events are more likely to result in someone getting injured than when a Service Fellowship holds a meeting.

I don’t believe indemnifying RI is practical either. Why would we invoke a rule that would put individual Rotarians at financial risk – we should be looking to protect them not expose them. I cannot think of a better way to kill the Fellowships or the proposed RRSA’s. If after having developed a risk management strategy – RI concludes that insurance is needed because of possible financial risk then perhaps the most cost effective solution will be to enhance the insurance Rotary carries.

I certainly agree that as an organization we need to protection the Rotary brand, including our name and logo.

While I don’t have any problem with the rules applying to Fellowships or the proposed RRSA’s. – I think we have a longstanding problem. Rotary clubs regularly get club wear etc manufactured through local suppliers and do not and will not forward a % to RI. Many Rotarians feel overtaxed by RI as it is – they aren’t going to add to the cost of a T-shirt by sending something to Evanston. I don’t think you will have much more luck with RRSA’s on this score either. A topic for another day.

As my earlier comments suggest, appreciate senior Rotary leaders concerns about other Rotary entities competing with the TRF for funds. I think that is something we should be concerned about. Like you, I don’t know enough about how the current Fellowships are raising money to know if there is any real impact. I would guess that is some cases that may well be.

However, that is in part because of the way the TRF operates. We really do need to examine the way the Foundation raises funds. I don’t think it is very effective. We rely way too much and are going to rely even heavier on individual Rotarians. I don’t think it is a winning strategy.

My experience tells me that it is always easier to raise money from people, including Rotarians, for a specific cause – much more difficult for a general fund or what is perceived as a black hole. I need only reference Rotary’s two very successful campaigns to raise money to eradicate Polio – much, much better than our annual fund raising for the TRF generally. Even though the money went to TRF>

So – when Fellowships do encourage Rotarians and clubs to financially support a particular initiative – be it Frank Devlyn’s Blindness initiatives – or the Night of 1,000 Dinners for landmines or for HIV/AIDS – those efforts have a better chance of resonating with Rotarians, Foundations, individuals and corporations.

I don’t think your proposal of requiring a 10% tithe on the RRSA will work either. Two years ago – we designated 15% of Night of 1,000 Dinners to TRF (it was the year I was Governor trying to get the Polio money and increase Foundation giving) we got a lot of push back from Clubs – they already felt like they had contributed enough to the Foundation – and didn’t appreciate us mixing the two causes. On another practical basis – it some cases – it would not be possible. For instance, I don’t think CIDA would permit us to direct 10% of the funds CRCID receives for a program to go to TRF. Or if a group got money from some external Foundation for a particular service project – hiving off a % for the TRF would not be acceptable.

But on the flipside – I am not sure that the RSSA’s should have access to limited TRF funds – certainly not if they are not contributing. That would put them in competition with individual Rotary clubs – I think that undermines the Rotary Clubs and would worsen the rather fragile relationship between TRF and the clubs. However that need not preclude individual Rotary clubs seeking TRF’s support in relation to a project carried out by a club that the RSSA helped coordinate.

Finally having the RSSA’s members paying dues to RI will be strongly resisted – that is like double taxation. The current Fellowships all have small membership fees – because the Rotarians are already paying club dues, district assessments, RI dues and magazine assessments. If the Fellowships and RRSA’s have to hike the fees to pay a second set of dues to money hungry Evanston – many will be forced out of business. It would be a hugely unpopular move.


In conclusion:

I think the issues that the issue of service minded Fellowship has sparked really merit a lot of discussion and consideration. As we commence our second century of service we have to review our approaches – especially to international assistance. The club centered international projects has often limited the size and usually means one-off projects – we are really fooling ourselves if we think that is an effective approach. So the possibility of mounting more meaningful programs of international assistance through Fellowships or RRSA’s is attractive.

Yet walking away from the Club-centric nature of our organization if not done carefully could be our demise.

I strongly support the notion of RI focusing on a few issues and staying with them & yet I recognize that with 1.2 + million members – we are going to have a diversity of interests & that we must let Rotarians and Rotary clubs pursue their interests – that has been and is our strength.

I appreciate that the senior Rotary leadership, especially the Board has to ensure the integrity of the organization and our brand. Yet, there is a danger that the senior leaders and worse, the staff in Evanston want to direct what Rotarians do – that would be very unhealthy.

The world is changing and Rotary has to chance with it. Fellowships have only been around for little more than 50 years. They have changed over the years – and have been a dynamic element of Rotary as Rotarians respond to the times.

But back to the Yin and Yang – Fellowship and Service fit together like a warm handshake, I am not sure we should separate them. So if given an option of continuing as a Fellowship or opting to become a new entity as you have proposed – I am not sure – the latter would be clearer and more manageable especially if clubs and districts could join directly – but I like the focus on fellowship too.

This was a rather long-winded response to your paper. However I do think that these are matters that deserve very thoughtful consideration.

I would welcome an opportunity to participate in an exchange of ideas, concerns and options between leaders from within the Fellowships – both kinds and senior Rotary leaders (not staffers) to discuss the range of issues that your paper begins to address.

It might be worth the cost to organize a working session – in Evanston – perhaps sometime after the next board meeting to have an in-depth discussion of these issues.

Paul Beaulieu

RID John Eberhard,

Subject : Your RRSA proposal

I read your memo about your proposal of a Rotary Register Service Affiliates (RRSA) and I humbly want to share with you few thoughts I had in reading your proposal.

First I must admit that I am not a member of any Fellowship groups except ROTI which in my knowledge is simply a Internet forum for Rotarians. I never participate in any other fellowships which, as you mentionned, are raising money for their cause. However I can understand the concern that some RI officials could have about that situation.

I recently discovered that many other organisations outside the Fellowships does not have the official recognition by RI. The Rotary Leadership Institue is a good example of those organisations. They work with Rotarians to develop Rotary knowledge to club members. They are not recognized by RI even if they work for the benefit of Rotary clubs. Such an organisation is very useful and I can see the positive effects on some clubs members who attend their sessions since our district is a member of RLI.

Because they are not officially recognized, it is more difficult for them to expand in the Rotary world even if their work is helping Rotarians to have a better knowledge of the Rotary organisation and its programs, which should have a very positive effects on the development of Rotary. This absence of recognition under an official umbrella certainely hurts other groups which are very useful and are playing an important role in the life or Rotarians. As an example you mentionned the WCS Ressource Network which has been dismantled when its request to be recognized as an official fellowship has been refused. I can also mentionned ICC which is recognized in the MOP but has no means to have an official structure in the the Rotary World.

That’s why I would suggest to extend your proposal to all other “unstructured” or “unrecognized” organisations thats exists in the Rotary world and not only organisations focused on service. With the new means of communications we can expect that in the future individuals or regional initiatives will be rapidly known in the Rotary world and RI will have a hard time trying to control those initiatives which would probably take the name Rotary in their own name. We can also think that creating an umbrella such as RRSA will also help those organisations to be better structured because they will find a minimun of rules and guidelines to rely on.

Because RRSA in my opinion shall regroup all unofficial organisations, the rules about the vendor license should be better defined and not be applicable to organisations which are only raising money for administrative puposes (suggested rule no 6). Some categories could be made such as groups authorised to raise money for their cause and those authorised only to raise money such as dues for adminsitrative puposes.

In fact I would prefer a name with a wider scope to include not only “Service” organisations but all structured groups such as The Rotary Leadership Institute, the ICC etc... A name such as Registered Rotary Affiliated Group (RRAG) or Registered Rotary Partner Group or any other name with a larger scope which could include any group would be more meaningful to me.

I am not a lawyer but I can tell you that I feel, but for different reasons, that an umbrella structure is actually needed for all the actual and futur groups that wants to work to develop the Rotary organisation and work accordingly under the Rotary principles of Service. Actually the absence of an official umbrella structure is a lack which refrain many groups to be better structured and to be more efficient in this Rotary World. In its second century, Rotary should be able to receive and host any group of dedicated Rotarians who wants to develop and structure a niche of service which is not actually the case. As Rotary International is seeking for new members we should be able to acomodate those who actually would like to find a niche where they will be able to perfom service to others in the way they feel they would be more useful. Actualy each time a group is getting organised outside the officially recognised entities, the actual rules are placing them in an unconfortable situation. This situation limit their expansion and at the same time the service they could provide to Rotarians or simply limit the service to people who would have need them the most.

To avoid the multiplication and duplication of organisations, a certain amount of rules would have to be defined. To be accepted under this umbrella each organisation would have to receive the Board appoval prior to be accepted under the umbrella.

It is my humble opinion. I am not very knowledgeable about all the legal or organisational implications of the actual situation but your proposal appears to me to be a fair answer to the lack I had already felt by being involved in organisations such as the Rotary Leadership Institute and the Inter Country Committee. I salute your initiative and I wish your proposal will be the answer to ther inconfortable situation you described.

Respecfuly submitted,

Paul Beaulieu PDG D7790


Buck Lindsay

Ref: the paper circulated by RID John Eberhard dated November 13, 2004 on the proposal for a new entity of Rotary to be called “Rotary Registered Service Affiliate” (RRSA).

1. The paper presents serious attention toward a complex and evolving activity of Rotarians. It addresses the assets and liabilities of, and the related benefits and risks to Rotary from “cause-related” fellowships.

2. The work of the Rotarians involved in these fellowships has without exception been inspired by the defining themes of Rotary: service and helping others. In most cases, the work of the Rotarians in these fellowships has expanded beyond the ability of the current Rotary structure (clubs, districts, RI committees, etc) to support their aspirations. So, they have employed entrepreneurial, creative solutions. They have explored new structures and systems of how Rotarians can associate and accomplish their work. Since these groups usually have more consistent leadership than the normal one-year turnover of leadership in Rotary, they sustain more intense, more effectively and more durable attention toward their areas of interest than a club might be able to do. They challenge the official Rotary structure on priorities and relative importance of their causes, giving concern to the Board and the TRF Trustees.

3. Since these activities have been grass root movements, they have had to deal with corporate and status quo forces to establish and maintain their existence. In Darwinian terms, they are survivors, which stimulates and in part justifies their existence. They each have a mission, which they adamantly guard against predators and adversaries. How Rotary International chooses to categorize them is not so important to them – they see their mission as primary, and want Rotary to embrace the cause as they do. They want to be under the umbrella of Rotary, not outside of it.

4. As Rotary has struggled on how to best “govern” these groups, the groups have occasionally been mistreated, both by individual leaders and by the Board itself. Some have been told by the board: you are a fellowship; then, no, you are not a fellowship, call yourself an initiative; then, you are a fellowship again. And now the Board is thinking of other classifications. This ambivalence on the part of the Board is distracting to the positive work that these groups do, reduces their effectiveness, and leaves those affected by their actions wondering about the wisdom of the Board.

5. There is a concept in most volunteer organizations that the volunteer is a special person, not to be hassled, harassed, pressured, caged or controlled – otherwise they leave and take their energy and work elsewhere. Rotary and its leaders should respect that ideal, or it could lose a foundation of its most loyal workers.

6. Maybe it is characteristic of any Board to want to control and define. Rotary International’s Board wants to set boundaries for these groups, to be comfortable that these groups will not misrepresent or damage Rotary. This role of governance sometimes turns into a jealous eye, as in the donations and grant money they these groups have been able to attract. This is money that RI itself could not attract – or new money. There is also a clear concern of the part of the Board that the efforts of these groups diverts donations and funds from The Rotary Foundation. As major donor to TRF, I challenge that idea.

7. Rotary leadership ought to challenge itself to discover new ways to empower Rotarians to service, not to set up barriers or inhibitors to that service. The idea proposed in the paper of these groups might owe a special dues to RI is contra-productive to that concept. It might make sense to the Board – more revenue - but it is a negative signal to the groups out doing the work. It is a tax for doing good, on those who live off meager dues ($10 per year – what will RI have out of that?) and precious donations. It presents an image of a remote group of rulers demanding allegiance in the form of cash.

8. Insurance against risk is another challenge. If Rotary wants to govern and set rules for these groups, then it accepts risks. It can’t control and be legally distant at the same time. The risk of being named in a frivolous law suit is present whether general liability coverage is present or not. A demand of insurance provision could well be the financial burden that would sink most of these groups, especially the smaller ones.

Draft letter to John Eberhardt from the RFPD Board of Directors
December 7, 2004

Ref: Eberhardt letter dated November 24, 2004 on Proposal for Rotary Registered Service Agencies (RRSA)

Dear Director John,

The Board of Directors of The Rotarian Fellowship on Population & Development (RFPD) has received your above referenced letter, and has distributed it to our leadership for information and for comment. On the occasion of RFPD’s Board meeting held December 6, 2004 in Cairo, Egypt, the Board discussed and evaluated the letter at great length and offers the following for your consideration:

1. We applaud the serious attention that you have given the subject of service-oriented fellowships, such as RFPD and others. We understand that there are important concerns on the part of the Board of Rotary International related to service-oriented fellowships.
2. We agree that there ought to be a differentiating name for these fellowship, and suggest the name Initiative, which more correctly reflects the purpose and activity of these groups.
3. We prefer that these service-oriented fellowships be under the umbrella of Rotary International, and be defined as a part of the RI organizational structure.
4. We are happy with the current method of how Matching Grant projects are administered by The Rotary Foundation (TRF), and see no value in setting up a new method where fellowships can apply directly for Matching Grants from TRF.
5. We oppose the idea that there should be a dues owed by these fellowships to RI. The Rotarians who compose these fellowships already pay dues to their club, their district, to RI and to the fellowship(s) to which they belong. Significant humanitarian work on a volunteer basis is being provided by these fellowships. To devise another tax for doing humanitarian work makes no sense.
6. We oppose the suggestion that these groups be required to provide liability insurance to protect RI from potential losses on account of the work they do. Almost all of the work done by service-oriented fellowships is through the Matching Grant methods, administered through clubs and districts, the risks for which would be covered by RI’s current general liability insurance. If there are specific high-risk activities from which RI wishes immunity, stipulate and limits those activities in the rules for the Matching Grant process. TRF has already does that through periodic policy decisions.
7. We oppose any requirement from RI for fellowships to indemnify Rotary International against any losses for the activities of the fellowship. In business ventures where parties desire “arm’s length” relations, indemnities make sense, when agreeable to both parties. In the case of fellowships where the only serve offered is voluntary, to assert requirement for indemnity breeches trust, becomes an additional financial burden, and threatens continuation of the activity.
8. We reject the concern that service-oriented fellowships are now usurping or might in the future usurp donations and other funds from TRF. We also disagree that donations of any amount should trigger the need for declaration by the fellowship to RI of such donation or the need for approval from RI. Individuals, businesses and foundations now want to and do give directly to the service-oriented fellowship, so that their funds can be used for the special purposes they may designate that are addressed by the service-oriented fellowship. These same funds would never be given to TRF, since TRF can not assure a donor that the funds would be used only as specifically designated. If special fund accounts (say for example, The RFPD Fund) could be established within TRF for these service-oriented fellowships that could be controlled and used by these fellowships to support their work, then we would reconsider this objection.

Please note the Directors Stan Tempalaars and Solve Kernell were observers at the RFPD Board Meeting mentioned about, and can provide more detail as to the content and spirit of the discussion. We appreciate your commitment to addressing these issues and look forward the Board’s findings.


For the Board of RFPD



Robert Zinser, Chairman Buck Lindsay, Secretary


Chris Offer

John

I like the idea of RRSA. It fills a void. I believe there needs to be rules or policy of how the RRSAs will function. And most import, there needs to be consequences when the rules are not followed. I am not familiar with all the rules regarding Fellowships however looking at the Code of Policy it appears that once they are approved by the RI Board; they never report their activities.

I suggest that RRSAs, Fellowships, and any incorporated organization that have been granted permission to use the Rotary name be governed by a set of rules. I suggest the following:

1. . Submit an Annual Report to the General Secretary with 90 days of the end of the Rotary year.
2. 2. Submit financial statements that have been independently reviewed to the General Secretary
3. 3. Submit a list of all officers and members
4. 4. Pay an annual fee to RI - this could be a token amount of say US$1.00 per member.
5. 5. All members must fill out an application form (paper or on-line) and must pay an annual fee. This will ensure the membership lists are current.

The consequences of not submitting the documents to RI would be that the approval to use the Rotary mark would be withdrawn. Possibly a suspension after 90 days and cancellations of the groups right to be affiliated with Rotary after six months of not filling. These are similar rules to all incorporated Societies in most provinces and states.

I suspect that I am listed as a member of at least one and possibly two fellowships that I never joined. I received two fellowship newsletters. I suspect that at a recent RI Convention I asked questions about the fellowship at a booth and was asked for my business card. This was used to record me as a member.

The RRSA fits what research on Volunteer organizations appears to be seeing as a growing trend. That is greater interest in specific short-term periods of volunteer service. People want to volunteer for a cause for a year or two and then move onto to another cause. The RRSA and Fellowships fill this need. Rotary club membership asks for lifetime commitment for a board range of causes and ideas.

There are a lot of Incorporated ‘Rotary’ societies out there and ‘Rotary’ Foundations. Some use the world Rotary in their title others do not. I have been involved in several. The Sandover-Sly Memorial Foundation is an incorporated BC Society and Registered Federal Charity. It has about C$125,000.00 invested. The interest from the investment supports youth exchange students in D5040 and 5050. All the directors are Rotarians.

The Rotary World Help Network is a multi-club humanitarian-shipping project in D5040 and 5050. It is an incorporated BC Society and registered Federal Charity. This group obtained formal approval from RI to use the word ‘Rotary’ in its name and constitution. But since incorporating has never had to file a report with RI. We have amended the constitution formally with the province of BC but are not required to tell RI. The group this year will ship 25 - 40 foot sea containers of used hospital and educational equipment around the world.

You and I know from our professional background that rules that are not enforce are of little value. Passing a rule with get most people to following it. But as time goes by and people see that there are no consequences to ignoring the rules, more people disregard the rule. I suggest this is why so many Fellowships are doing what they want rather than what Rotary wants. There are no consequences when the rules are not followed.

I submit Rotary goes even farther and rewards Rotarians who do not follow the rules. They are thinking out of the box and are creative. Take the case of one-day district conference. Rotary staff know when the date is sent in that the conference cannot meet the requirements for Rotary content. However, an RI President’s Rep is sent giving credibility to the conference.

Many PDGs that are involved in the various ‘unofficial’ Fellowships or Fellowships who are doing their own thing are rewarded with RI or zone appointments. If a person who in debt to RI is disqualified from holding RI appointments should not someone who ignores the rules after being cautioned?

A long diatribe but the bottom line is the RRSA is a good idea if it has clear policies attached to it and the rules are enforced. Not rigid draconian enforcement but enforced so that people know they must be followed.

Chris


Serge Gouteyron

Dear John

I believe that Rotary International is much more varied than its official programs. Therefore it would be nice to use the web site to promote those activities, that, while not within RI programs, are the most important, in some cases involving several zones.

That being said, as far as Fellowships are concerned, it seems to me that some official fellowships are much more than simple fellowships, by the scope of their activities and the funds involved (for instance, those dealing with AIDS, Population & Development, Preventable blindness...).

I believe that we should think about giving them a more permanent official status within Rotary, particularly since other such groups might be created in other areas.

But, coming back to your project:

I think that the formula that we talked about during the Diplomatic Corps reception in Chicago might work.
- At the center, we have the clubs and districts. We cannot do much there.
- We can very well institute a 2nd tier, constituted with official RI associations and organizations. Our fellowships would be at that level. We could also include the Tasks force nominated by the RI President.
- On the 3rd level, we would have associations and organizations dealing with our optional programs.

The Strategic Plan could define our official programs, while the recommended activities would be optional.

In such as scenario, what would be the relationship of RI with those groups?

- For the groups within RI official programs, RI must rely on them, and while coming up with rules of procedure, RI should grant them as much freedom and power of decision as possible. This point is very important.
- Those fellowships not within recommended activities would remain as Rotary Fellowships as they are today.

Those are just a few thoughts. Please don't hesitate to ask if I am not clear enough. Thanks for working so hard on this topic of great importance for Rotary.

Yours in Rotary,


Serge Gouteyron


Harold Friend


Mark, RID John has prepared a thoughtful and, if I may say so, very
exciting, new avenue for outreach to the present "marginal" activities of
Rotarians. I say marginal because that is where the Rotary Fellowships
have always been placed, in limbo. Are they really part of Rotary or not?
I would endorse this concept as the natural extension of the Fellowship
program, for the expansion of the concept of Rotarian service and as a
membership enhancing initiative.

Harold


Jim Johannsen, PDG, D5240, 1992-93

John – The attachment to your first e-mail came through OK at my address. Thank you so much for including me in your feedback loop. Last October, 2003, if the General Secretary, had asked for feedback on his WCSRN proposal to the Board, we would never have had the fiasco that we are having with the merger of the WCSRN into the HSRF. There is still virtually nothing happening and what little has been structured into the HSRF Web Site has only a fraction of the functionality of the former WCSRN site (now Hands Across the Sea) so we continue to maintain the HANDS site and if the HRSF ever does get serious about the merger, at least they can merge complete and up to date modules. Now onto my comments:

1. Registered Rotary Service Affiliate. I wholeheartedly agree that we need the “Registered Rotary Service Affiliate” structure. You will remember, last in October and November, 2003, I and others had communicated extensively about the inapplicability of the Fellowship structure to the WCSRN. I think the “Rotary Service Affiliate” is a great idea. I am not sure that you need the term “Registered” in the title but you may have a good reason for using it.

2. Club/District Programs (Your P1, Paragraph 2) – I know you are aware of some “Country-wide” Projects as well as the Club and District sponsored projects but you may not realize how many there are. Please see the Projects Directory, On-Going Projects Index on the HANDS Web Site. We have indexed some known 95 projects, many of which embody efforts from more than a club or district. Your 2nd Paragraph also mentions “International Service Project” or “WCS Project”. I personally think we should consider WCS, 3H Grants, MG as well as Disaster Relief projects as all “International Service Projects”. If not, what are they? I would suggest the paragraph state “…forth Avenue of Service as an International Service Projects, including WCS Projects, TRF Grant Projects and Disaster Relief”.

3. Fellowship Groups (Your P2, Paragraphs 2 & 3) – You are absolutely right, these “service oriented” programs are not Fellowships. Fellowship will most certainly evolve from the service activity, but they were not organized to provide “fellowship” among the member Rotarians. In addition, I think it was a mistake when the Board, some years ago, merged the former “Vocational Contact Groups” into the Fellowship program. I think Rotarians join these groups not with the intent of providing fellowship but literally to make vocational contacts. Everything we do in Rotary eventually results in fellowship but the name should be more mission directed than to lump them all together as “Fellowships”

4. Rotary Service Affiliates in relation to the RI/TRF Staff Structure ( Page3, Paragraphs 3-5) – In at least three successive Rotary Institutes in Anaheim, during the General Secretaries presentation, I have appealed for more RI/TRF Staff use of volunteers. Staff virtually always says “No” to our requests for expanded service on the basis of limited funding and staff and yet, we have thousands of Rotarians who can assist staff with specific defined functions and thereby expand the capability of Rotary in total. Ed’s answer has always been “we don’t train our staff to work with volunteers very effectively”. Every Registered Rotary Service Affiliate should be directly integrated with specific staff members and the staff should be instructed to utilize the resources of the Affiliate. Obviously, this will require some expenditure of time on the part of staff, but we should realize the increased project productivity that would result, as well as the improved input to staff from the “grass roots” regarding changes in program, etc.

5. Fund Raising (Page 2, Paragraph 6) – I do not believe that Fellowships or Rotary Service Affiliates should be permitted to do fund raising above the amount needed for the administration of the group itself. Perhaps you can consider setting an amount per member to cover overhead, that would automatically balance the large and small fellowships. When the Affiliate files their annual report to RI, they could be required to donate any surplus to TRF. In addition, I do not feel that a RRSA should charge its members dues. Why should we pay, above the general dues, to do the mission of Rotary? The annual administrative budgets of the RRSAs should be supported by voluntary contributions.

6. WCSRN Was not a Disbandment (Page 4, Paragraph 1, after partial) – The WCSRN was not disbanded, the General Secretaries letter of 6 October 2003 directed that the name be changed and certain other changes be made. As a result of the Board’s decision, The Humanitarian Service Resource Fellowship (HSRF) was created with the intention of merging the WCSRN into the HSRF. Unfortunately this has not happened and in July, 2004 I announced that the WCSRN would re-start the maintenance of the WCSRN Web Site and on 27 August 2004 we posted the first update since May. The logic was that since the HSRF Web Site was started with the May, 2004 data from the WCSRN and not thereafter maintained, the maintenance of the WCSRN Site would permit the HSRF, at such date they desired, to merge more complete and updated modules. Nothing has happened since then and the WCSRN has now changed its address to HANDS Across the Sea to comply with the October, 2003 decision.

As a side note – We were never permitted to see the General Secretary’s report to the Board, but we were advised that the change was required because the name WCSRN was being confused with the official Rotary program, WCS. In the 7 years since Cliff Dochterman conceived of the WCSRN, which was approved by the RI Board. with two successive encouragement resolutions, we were never aware of any confusion and if there was confusion, why didn’t RI simply change the definition they wrote and published on the RI Web Site to clarify the confusion.

7. Consultation with Effected Groups (Page 4, Paragraph 2) – I agree with you 100%. Had this been done in October, we would not have had the WCSRN/HSRF fiasco that ensued and it still has not been resolved.

8. The Issues, Page 4, Paragraph 3) – I do not fully understand all of the ramifications of the seven items you list, but I do not understand why it is desirable to get the name of ROTARY out of our collective efforts. Have we discarded the PR program? As to Risk Management, it seems to me that RI will be sued anytime a law suite against any facet of the Rotary or Rotarian structure. Some years ago, Fellowships were directed to rename themselves “…of Rotarians”, taking Rotary out of their name and I think that was for legal purposes. We should insure RI to cover all of the contingent risks, RI, TRF, Club, District, Fellowships and Affiliates. As to HANDS, we, unlike many of the other service oriented fellowships, do not conduct projects, so our exposure would probably be minimal. We are merely an “information resource”. From reading the mission of the HSRF, there is an implication that the HSRF will actually do projects, which would obviously have more exposure.

9. Fellowship Groups (Page 5, Paragraph 3) – I think you should also have the Hands Across the Sea program in your list because until it is ultimately merged into the HSRF, it will continue to be updated and operated. The HSRF Web Site has only about 10% of the content of the HANDS Web Site, and the data is the 5/04 edition of the HANDS Site, whereas the HANDS site is kept up to date. I realize that your paragraph related to Fellowship Groups but I think your concept applies to all Rotary cause-related programs.

10. Non-Club Organizations (Page 5, Paragraph 4) – Perhaps this is where the HANDS program should be listed and I again refer you to the 95 projects as mentioned in paragraph 2 above.

11. Risk Management, Page 6, Paragraph 4 – I think the RI Liability Policy should cover all Rotary registered activities.

12. The Solution, Page 8, Paragraph (2) – I don’t think that a Fellowship or Affiliate should be required to pay dues to RI. They were created to support the objectives of Rotary and should not have to pay for that “privilege”.

John – I sincerely appreciate your request for input. Somehow we have got to get this same attitude implemented by the RI/TRF staff.
Jim Johannsen, PDG, D5240, 1992-93
Chair, HANDS Operations Committee (Formerly the World Community Service Resource Network - WCSRN)
Editor, HANDS Web Site - www.RotaryWCSRN.org (No dot after Rotary)
Moderator, HANDS Yahoo Listserve - www.groups.yahoo.com/group/RotaryWCSRN


Snail Mail:
2661 Tallant Road, MW-529
Santa Barbara, CA 93105, USA



________________________________________
From: John Eberhard
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: Proposed submission to Board Ad Hoc Committee on Fellowships

November 22, 2004

Greetings all,

I apologize in advance if you have already received this. I am informed that my emails in early November were not picking up attachments and as a result the draft submission proposal was probably NOT attached to my earlier note to you. If you have already received this, please accept my apology for cluttering up your system. If not, I would be grateful for your feedback.

Attached below is my earlier email.

John

Your Proposal for “Registered Rotary Service Affiliates – (RRSA)” sent Nov 18, 2004

Dear Director John,

The Board of Directors of The Rotarian Fellowship on Population & Development (RFPD) has received your above referenced letter, and has distributed it to our leadership for information and for comment. On the occasion of RFPD’s Board meeting held December 6, 2004 in Cairo, Egypt, and during the last weeks the Board discussed and evaluated the letter at great length and offers the following detailed comments for your consideration:

I. We applaud the serious attention that you have given the subject of service-oriented fellowships, such as RFPD and others.
II. We agree with you fully that Rotary has to improve in planning, conceiving, implementing, evaluating and reporting on their WCS-projects. Apart from PolioPlus and maybe a few pilot projects / 3-H projects our traditional club-to-club WCS compares badly with the international development aid projects of other big NGOs. Rotary’s reputation may depend on improving our WCS systems.
III. We presume this is the main reason that Rotary hardly gets funds from other sources whilst other NGOs do for many years. That hampers our WCS whilst on the other hand Rotary as (one of) the largest volunteer organization with its unique global network could utilize such funds often better than other organizations.
IV. RFPD exclusively initiates, supports and co-funds projects of clubs or districts. RFPD is not attracting funds that would go to TRF. Clubs receive funds as do districts. They do not need to report to RI or ask for approval why should RFPD be expected to do this? Our sections are cooperating with Regional Rotary Foundation Coordinators; the coordinator of zone 14 is a member of the board of our German section. Individuals, businesses and foundations now want to and do give directly to the service-oriented fellowship, so that their funds can be used for the special purposes they may designate, that are addressed by the service-oriented fellowships. These same funds would never be given to TRF, since TRF can not assure a donor that the funds would be used only as specifically as designated. If special fund accounts (say for example, The RFPD Fund) could be established within TRF for these service-oriented fellowships that could be controlled and used by these fellowships to support their work it may be possible for TRF to handle these funds. The grant we received from Packard Foundation for the 3-H Nigeria project of districts 1840 and 9120 is carried out by RDG, the German TRF-branch.
V. RFPD maintains the tradition of club-to-club (or district-to-district) projects. At the same time, RFPD gets funds from other sources for club projects.

VI. We do not see the necessity to depart from the tradition that Rotary Service is a function and responsibility of the Rotary Club. We even see the danger that our clubs would push WCS into the background as some already tend to do. Clubs should be encouraged and supported in their WCS activities.
VII. As Rotary’s goal Peace and World Understanding is getting more important and as we promote it best with WCS our overall goal should be to strengthen and to improve WCS and to make Rotary competitive in getting funds from outside.
VIII. Service related fellowships have proven that they can substantially contribute to WCS. Every counterproductive interference or bureaucracy which could weaken them should be avoided. Members of service fellowships are highly motivated as they work in decentralized units which of course accept an overall control by RI. This is how international organizations and even companies work successfully: by decentralization / delegation and by overall not detailed control. This might apply even more for a volunteer organization. RFPD as an active volunteer organization wants to work under the umbrella of RI, as you rightly state.
IX. RFPD sticks to the rules of a RI fellowship. Its Board of Directors keeps close contact with the RI Directors of the zones to which they belong. We plan to have an Advisory Board of Past RI Directors to be able to maintain even greater vigilance. Our largest section in Germany has a board of directors to whom the chairman of the German Governors council, a multidistrict organization, belongs.
X. In conclusion we feel that you raise basic questions which are linked with each other and which are not just a problem of the service fellowships. Such questions would not be solved by giving these fellowships a new “legal” status like RRSA. This complex problem should be studied in the holistic context of our movement and intensively without time pressure.

Following our comments to the items of your paragraph “The Solution”:

9. Whilst we do not see any difficulty in continuing with service related fellowships in case RI feels that there ought to be a differentiating name for these fellowships, we suggest the name Initiative, which correctly reflects the purpose and activity of these groups. In any case these service-oriented fellowships should be under the umbrella of Rotary International, and be defined as a part of the RI organizational structure.
10. We strongly oppose the idea that there should be dues owed by these fellowships to RI. The Rotarians who compose these fellowships already pay dues to their club, their district, to RI and to the fellowship(s) to which they belong. Significant humanitarian work on a volunteer basis is being provided by these fellowships. To devise a tax for doing humanitarian work makes no apparent sense.
11. The suggestion that these groups be required to provide liability insurance to protect RI from potential losses on account of the work they do seems unnecessary. All of the work done by RFPD is through clubs and districts or through the Matching Grants, administered through clubs and districts, the risks for which would be covered by RI’s current general liability insurance. If there are specific high-risk activities from which RI wishes immunity, stipulate and limit those activities in the rules for the Matching Grant process. TRF already does that through periodic policy decisions.
12. The request that service related fellowships (or RRSA) would provide a hold-harmless statement and agreement for indemnity of RI for any legal action in which RI was included does not apply as RFPD does not implement any projects itself but only through clubs and districts.
13. Membership should remain as presently regulated in the RI Code of Policies.
14. Service fellowships should in this regard be treated as a club as if at all they would distribute or sell such material they would exclusively do it to support club activities.
15. We are happy with the way Matching Grant projects are now administered by The Rotary Foundation (TRF), and see no purpose in setting up a new method where fellowships can apply directly for Matching Grants from TRF.
16. See our comment under 7.
17. RFPD always seeks the support of the Governors and is not aware of any problems which Governors would have seen from fellowship activities. Governors are happy to see that RFPD supports their clubs. Clubs and districts are inviting RFPD officers for speeches on the service opportunity “Population Issues” which are mentioned in the “RI Menu of Service Opportunities” and based on the corresponding resolution of CoL 1998. RI could restrict their approvals of service fellowships to those promoting a service of this menu. RFPD is not affiliated with “like minded government or NGO affiliates”.
18. RFPD never intended this or would intend that.
19. -13. As so far.
14. Could be done by service fellowships as long as RI staff does not interfere.
15. As so far.
16. Given time, RFPD would comply.

Please note the Directors Stan Tempelaars and Solve Kernell were observers at the RFPD Board Meeting mentioned above, and can provide more details as to the content and spirit of the discussion. Finally we would like to refer to the letter RFPD sent you on June 1, 2004.

We appreciate your vision and commitment in addressing these issues. We request they should be studied further before arriving at decisions.

For the Board of RFPD

Robert Zinser, Chairman


Monty Audenart

Hi RID John:

You put alot of work into this proposal, and my comments to it are short, because I support it in its entirety.

I would that Rotary be inclusive rather than exclusive.
Just as RI has moved to include Fellowships that seem to be more service oriented (though Fellowship abounds), you have preserved order in the organization, and Rotary will grow because of it.. It would appear you can do the same with the RRSA's by a least keeping a hand to them.
RRSA's and Fellowships need to be accountable to RI, and possibly some of the admininstrative and liability costs of RI to govern them needs to be borne by the Groups.


Hope this helps.

Monty



Pietro Freschi

Thanks for your proposal.
I do not know which will be the impact with the new wave to restrict the control of the Rotary activity from the center.
What you are proposing is just in the opposite direction, but I agree with you it will semplify the day by day life of the fellowship.
What are the comments from the others ?
Regards
Pietro Freschi

Sonny Brown

Dear John:

Thanks for your letter…I have been thinking about this same subject for some time. It is time that we look at the overall structure of our organization and recognize that we have grown, certainly since the Fellowship principal was originated. We have more members and more service minded Rotarians who are passionate about SERVICE, not just fellowship.

You have addressed the concerns and made a good case for change, but I fear that my advisory committee of the Humanitarian Service Resource Fellowship may not truly understand how we fit in the picture. Therefore, if I may ask a special favor, can you briefly explain to me so that I may share with our Board and Advisory Committee how we will fit into the picture you paint? We are just getting it going great and to move us off track would seriously affect our committed members.

From what I read in your attachment, we should be progressive…I think a simpler name should be considered….something like “Rotary Service Fellowship” for this new structure you suggest.

Thanks for your sharing this important discussion with us, we should like to make substantive comments and suggestions.

All the best,

Sonny

Dear Colleagues:

We are off and running quite well as a new Humanitarian Service Resource Fellowship, recommended by the Board. John Eberhard, a great friend of the WCSRN and its successor HSRF. He has been charged with recommending to the RI Board some changes to the Fellowship area.

I know that I ask a great deal of you, dear friends, but we do need your input, so I ask if you would read through the full email below.

Perhaps you can start at the bottom of this email and work up to Elliot Lowenstein’s response ( Elliot is the Treasurer of the HSRF). Would you then please provide us with your thoughts? John Eberhard is on the mailing list so your response to all will be helpful.

At this time for Thanksgiving, I thank you for being of special assistance in the further development of what we envision as a greatly expanded opportunity to serve.

The best!

Sonny

PRID William Gant

Since Charlie knows RID Sushi, I recommend that he (utilizing whatever contact he has with Sonny in doing so, pursue details of John's proposal with RID Sushi and, subsequently, with whomever drafts the final Board decision, to determine exactly what the HSF can do to provide leadership which will enhance, promote, and authorize RRSAs and their proper roles in Rotary activities and growth.

Since the largest concern and biggest objections appear to have been expresses by staff, I recommend that the GS be asked to review and comment on John's proposal (including whatever is deemed to be appropriate comment by TRF leadership about TRF being compelled to utilize "RBM")

Best regards,
PRID Bill GANT.




Marco Kappenberger

Dear RID John,


I am responding as Chair of the Environment Fellowship of Rotarians (Rotary Fellowship of Environment). I had also founded and applied to RI for the recognition of the United Nations Fellowship of Rotarians. I thus feel that I understand particularly well the usefulness of your efforts and do thank you for them.

It's a pleasure to thus support your efforts by sharing with you my comments on the conceptual proposal, as well as on the functional details.

Before I had a chance to receive and to read your document and below message, I expressed my opinion in the brief message quoted below, following the good news of the recent meeting between the President of RI and the Dir. Gen. of UNESCO.

Prior to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, our Environment Fellowship was in contact with the office

of the President of RI and we did submit our input for the RI participation lead by our member PRID Tony Serrano who was the right Rotarian at the right place and did a great job. Similarly, with important United Nations' and other important conferences, activities, efforts for sustainable development, etc. etc.continually taking place around the world, since Rotary has of the best volunteers with the needed experience and expertise, we are fortunate that most likely everywhere we'll find the right Rotarian to competently and well represent RI there. This does maximize the quality of the Rotary contribution and does minimize the cost to Rotary.

Because among Rotarians in general and the Rotary Fellowship members in particular there are all over the world highly experienced top quality specialists and experts in all fields willing to volunteer their services for humankind in rotarian spirit, with some coordination to allow them to do so, Rotary has a huge potential to achieve a multiple
of PolioPlus for nearly no cost in comparison. This is in particular true also in really wisely making the best of all the great opportunities which its consultative status with the United Nations offers to RI.

RRSAs appear to be a most promising concept ! RRSAs have the great potential to make it possible for Rotary to always better making the best of all the excellent opportunities available to Rotary to always better serve humankind globally, and at the same time for Rotarians to enjoy the fellowship in and through Rotary ever more.

As we consider the RRSAs, it is of value to consider the case of the proposed UN Fellowship of Rotarians (UNFR). Since the purpose of the committee of RI is so limited and different from that of the UNFR, it is surprising that the decision to reject the
UNFR was, as you mention, that "the United Nations Fellowship of Rotarians has been rejected because 'Rotary already has a committee that is directly connected to the UN'".
If those who rejected the UNFR had really known sifficiently about the United Nations and would have informed themselves about the task of the RI committee in comparison of those of the proposed UNFR, they would never have rejected the UNFR with such a superficial judgment 'on the theory that Rotary already has a committee that is directly
connected to the UN', as you write. To this quoted statement I wish to comment that this reasoning would be fully justified if that 'committee that is directly connected to the
UN' would really fulfill its full potential and make the best of what the UN offers to Rotary, thus finally stopping missing opportunities for Rotary rather than making the best of them! ..but it not even has the explicit mandate to do so. We have noted
that, although far from sufficient, recently there has been a badly needed renewal of this committee's chair and members, but RI goes on to sadly continually miss so many great opportunities globally which the consultative status of RI to the UN does give us: opportunities for Rotary to serve humankind at nearly no cost to RI. This renewal of
membership is promising, but it is really far from sufficient for that committee to be able to start to cope with the huge opportunities available to Rotary through the United Nations. This is most unfortunate because, through its 1.2 million membership, Rotary has the best selection of experts in all fields who, if given a chance, would volunteer their time for humankind where the need is greatest ! Because of this, as an important member of Civil Society, Rotary has a moral duty not to continue wasting most of the many opportunities constantly offered by the UN !

But, it really appears that the membership of the above-mentioned '...committee that is directly connected to the UN' of RI is still far too small and the individuals are really far too busy to be able to dedicate themselves sufficiently well to their so limited duties, and are unable to make the best of the unique global opportunities the UN offers to Rotary. Among Rotarians there are globally so many top quality specialists andexperts who'd love to contribute their expertise, but, sadly, probably also because now in RI, besides yourself, there are too few who really understand the UN, its potential and had experience in it, RI is not yet able to be giving them this opportunity.
Because the above-mentioned RI committee is barely able to carry out its so limited task, it would be necessary for the UN Fellowship of Rotarians to be recognized and able to function, possibly, hopefully soon, as a RRSA, also especially making the best in using Rotarians' expertise and good will towards sustainable development in achieving
the United Nations Millennium Goals. Thus, unless and until that RI committee is really given the needed additional tasks, strengthened sufficiently and acquires the necessary
commitment and vision, there is urgent need for a United Nations RRSA.
If RI wishes to continue to rely on the 'RI Representatives to the United Nations and Other Organizations' for fulfilling all of Rotary's full potential in relation to the UN, then it is imperative that the tasks of this committee be redefined extending them
sufficiently ! For the time being their task is to enhance Rotary's visibility, as well as monitor and provide very limited information. While this is useful for Rotary's visibility, what is really needed for Rotary to have better quality fellowship and best serve humankind through the UN was well defined in the scope, object and proposed
activities of the United Nations Fellowship of Rotarians. It is thus most unfortunate that those who did choose to reject the proposed United Nations Fellowship of Rotarians did not realize the huge difference between the existing small RI committee concerned with
Rotary's visibility, and the totally different, most needed, constructive, active purpose of the UN fellowship of Rotarians !

Since RI refused to accept the proposed United Nations Fellowship of Rotarians because, as you explain, 'Rotary already has a committee that is directly connected to the UN' and thus, logically, RI wishes for its RI Representatives to the UN and Other Organizations (p.O42 of the current RI Official Directory) to really do that job of the
proposed UNFR, then RI must adapt and enlarge the tasks and strength of that committee making it also responsible for the action the United Nations Fellowship of Rotarians was set up to do. Is this being prepared so to be done best soonest ?

I'd greatly appreciate your comments also on this. And now just 2 comments about The Solution: - Since Rotary Fellowships do welcome Rotarians, their spouses and Rotaractors, there was the need to clarify/specify if only Rotarians can be members of RRSAs, and this is covered by point 5. of TheSolution, as in your message.
- Re pt 6., it is ok to have 10% of any fundraising for RI, but it would be good if RI could contribute to help for this not to be a hinderance for the success of the fundraising by assuring that it will earmark and spend that cash for causes directly related to the purpose for which the cash was raised.

Regarding The Results, I have the following remarks:

- Over 80 years after 1923, the changed global situation does amply justify the reversing of the 1923 decision.
- RRSAs are necessary, and you are also so right in the paragraph where you mention the UN's Millennium Goals and the need for ResultsBased Management as it applies to 'doing good in the world'. - Rotary has pioneered helping humankind in sustainable development, and the RRSAs, which truly fill a great void, will help do do it
better, in a way adapted to the present needs !


Believing that the proposed RRSAs will greatly help Rotary to better serve its object in Rotary's second century, and remaining fully at your disposal for any additional information and comments you might wish, I look forward to remain in contact and am gratefully yours in Rotary fellowship,

Marco Kappenberger
IPP, Rotary Club Apia
District 9920
President, Environment Fellowship of Rotarians (EFR)



Marion Bunch

Dear John,

First, please forgive me for not getting back to you re a possible conference call. Gosh, I was overwhelmed from the time I got back from Africa, to having relatives for Thanksgiving holiday, and then back to work. Things are a bit more settled now, and I'd like to respond to acouple of things.

In a separate email I wrote you, Kevin and Raju, I responded positively to your invitation to the CRCID Board meeting. I will appreciate some clarification from you regarding your expectations of us after reading my other email. There is very good reason to believe that the multi-country ANCHOR project could spread to some of the countries you have targeted in RI District 9200, if that is something you desire. I am also gathering
that you have an interest in going to CIDA for large funding, is that correct? Anyhow, you'll read my questions in the other email.

Finally, I reviewed your concept paper on creating a separate entity (ies) within Rotary International that are for like-minded service-minded Rotarians and using that entity rather than a fellowship. I certainly don't have a "real" vote in this, but I guess I'd have to say that I would not be interested in having your concept take place -- primarily because
we're already "down the road" in working on HIV/AIDS through the Fellowship. Our fellowship is incorporated here in the State of Georgia, and I've recently applied for non-profit 501(c)3 status in the U.S. We've written Bylaws, have a great Board of Directors, and I've managed to do all of this while staying within the guidelines of Rotary International. We have RFFA Country Chairs in England, India, and a few other countries. The fellowship serves my purpose because it is RI Board-approved, and I've
already gained that status. It can be a separate operating entity for me when I wish to form partnerships in other parts of the world -- so I am happy with this situation. I'm really not lacking in anything I need at the present time.

I hope you are enjoying safe travel, and I look forward to talking with you upon your return. I'll be in town all the month of December.

Most sincerely,
Marion Bunch




Ralph Jones


Hello John,

Very interesting reading! I am not at all surprised this has come to a head, given the actions of the Population Control group around the COL.

I think this proposal is conceptually good. It will distinguish between
true "Fellowship" groups and "cause-oriented" groups and focus the
important differences.

It seems to me that "The Solution" tries to "soften" the operational impact on existing "cause-oriented" groups and, as a result, is not demanding enough. To say an RRSA must have be incorporated in Illinois with constating documents approved by the General Secretary, impose the requirements of items 4, 5, 12, 13, 14, 15 and grant the endorsement implied in items 7, 8, 9, 11 says they are very much a part of the RI
family. To not require coverage under RI Insurance, given the likely activities and associations of an RRSA (to say nothing of the "zealots"), seems inconsistent. RI would be endorsing the RRSAs but not asking them to be fully fiscally responsible.

Your proposal flies with me, with the one change. I can see it as being in the same spirit as the New Models Pilot Project, which I feel is essential to the survival of Rotary

Thanks for seeking my comments.

Ralph Jones
(Major Donor)




Ray Taylor

John.

The purpose of this memo is to ask your clarification on some points set out in your November proposal regarding Fellowships.

I am acting as the founder and current chair of the Polio Survivors and Associates Fellowship (PSA).as you know, I am a former Fellowships Chair.
I was aware of that - Congratulations for taking this on. We are hearing more and more of the malady of the "survivors" and Rotary surely has a role to play here!

You might be interested in reading an excellent series on polio done by the London Free Press which included some interesting anecdotes and good research on polio survivors.


I propose to ask the Board of Directors of PSA for their comments and suggestions; however, before forwarding the proposal to them I am asking clarification on the following points.:

Page 1.pp6.am I correct that the word "unofficial" should read "official".?
No. This would be an "unofficial program" like fellowship groups or youth exchange are "unofficial activities"

Page 8.under "The Solution" item #2.during the start-up phase of our Fellowship we have no dues. This may be changed at our annual meeting to > be held in Chicago on Monday June 20 depending upon perceived need. Is it correct to assume dues will not be assessed by RI if the Fellowship does not need dues.Fishing Fellowship, for example has liminated their dues.some of us believe dues collection is both a burden on the structure and a deterrent to membership.
If this proposal were to be adopted, the fellowship groups such as Polio Survivors (I assume, although I have not read its chartering documents so do not know if it is intended to right a wrong, raise money or be advocates for the cause; or, be exclusivly for “fellowship" contact) could determine whether or not it charges a membership fee. If it were the former, then it would, under this proposal, be an affiliate service organization and not a fellowship group.

item 5.a basic purpose of PSA is to connect Rotarians with non-Rotarian individuals, organizations, institutions, etc. already in the field of helping polio survivors.one of our PSA directors is a non-Rotarian "Associate" and the director of an international polio
organization.she is our most knowledgeable and important member of the Board.without a close working relationship with the institutions already in the field, we would not have a viable organization.as written this could create a serious problem for us, up to an including putting us our of business.as you know, the current definitions of Fellowships call for inclusion of spouses, Rotaract members, etc..some of us feel strongly that we need to be more inclusive with the family of Rotary.I realize this could be an important issue in such cases as "risk management".I am raising raising the question now, because it could have impact of other Fellowships.especially RV, Caravanning, Flying, etc.

You raise a good question Jack. Frankly, I have not heard of fellowship groups having non-rotarian members. On the other hand, the RRSA concept (which given the content of the paragraph above) suggests PSA would probably fit in that entity box. In that event, it would be encouraged to collaborate with knowledgeable experts in the field of endevour and as a result raise the level of its potential efficacy of the cause.

I have advocated recognition and support by RI of service-oriented Fellowships.Recreational and Vocational Fellowships have long operated very successfully with no tangible help from RI.with the advent of the Fellowships website (which is an entirely grass roots enterprise and received no help or financing from Rotary). very little staff help is needed.your proposal for recognition of RRSA (Fellowships) is what many of us have been advocating, but it must be "supported" properly by RI to be viable and effective.

I agree I am in winter quarters and cannot seem to be able to attach material to this email.therefore, I am asking Jack Campbell, PSA webmaster to forward to you our standard definition, mission, purpose, etc. of PSA to help you to understand what PSA is designed to do.

Thanks - I look forward to receiving that!

I assure you, those of us who have labored long in the Fellowships vineyard appreciate your interest and your effort. Thanks for taking the trouble to respond! I look forward to your collective views and can assure you that they will be heard at the committee. Given your considerable personal experience, your comments will be welcomed! Thanks, again for keen observations and help.

Ray


PRIP Raja Sabu

Dear John,

I owe an apology to you for not sending my reaction to the detailed proposal on "Registered Rotary Services Affiliates" statement which you had given me in December, 2004 when we met for the Kolkata Institute.

All these weeks and months I have been involved in many hectic activities and travels including some unforeseen and hence the delay. I know you must have already had the deliberations on this matter at your Committee level and, therefore, my comments here may be superfluous. These comments will be superfluous for another reason which is that you have dealt with the subject so comprehensively that there is nothing more that I can add except complimenting you for dealing with the subject in a most realistic and pragmatic manner. While we were discussing this issue I had already made my initial comment that the programme or service cause related activities cannot be called fellowships. Perhaps they were accepted upto a certain point but then as we grow bigger we need to recognize the emerging needs of the organization.

Your proposal of RRSA duly answers that need. Not only some of the programmes you have indicated but there are many others which have grown from Rotary and are still basically working with Rotary and doing very useful work. Why should Rotary loose such focused programmes and Rotarians who have focused interest in such programmes. You have rightly observed that encouragement of such activities might create greater interest in Rotary, give it an added identity and attract more members. Programmes like Gift of Life, Heartbeat International, Permanent Smiles (I think the name is different but something to do with cleft lips) are such successful activities which are continuing to
function with strong Rotary connection and having international dimension.

You have rightly observed that in promoting RRSA and officially recognizing them there might be some legal ramifications and serious ones. They can all be taken care of including the insurance situation as long as Rotary International is fully indemnified.

As I started reading the note I was developing ideas in my mind and then I realized that all of them have already been summed up when I came towards the concluding part of your proposal.

Per capita dues is important; registration is important; restriction on use of Rotary logo and following the requirement as licensed vendor is relevant. So also are all other points you have mentioned. I have, however, not been able to understand item 9 fully. My own view is that RRSAs should not be allowed to generally circularize their activities for solicitation for funds from the Rotary clubs/districts worldwide. Some kind of restriction has to be there and may be an approval of the Board of Directors of Rotary International/the R.I.President/the General Secretary/the District Governor where circularization is solicited. In this regard item 10 does not fully provide the safeguard because solicitation of funds for the cause may not be termed as commercial =
purpose.

I believe that there should be yet another safeguard that no RRSA would undertake any activity that would be repugnant to the objectives, policies of Rotary International spelled out in its constitutional documents or Board of Directors decisions. For example no RRSA should be allowed to take up any activities that would be intending to create discrimination on religious grounds or otherwise forbidden by Rotary. Another example could be the case of abortions where there is no R.I.policy but if the RRSA dealing with the population takes up this policy or activity it should through a policy adopted by the R.I. forbid it.

By the time this letter reaches you I myself will have the opportunity of meeting you in person. We will be able to extend our discussions then.

Regretting the delay again and looking forward to meeting you soon.

Yours sincerely

Raja



PDG Harold Friend

RID John has prepared a thoughtful and, if I may say so, very exciting, new avenue for outreach to the present "marginal" activities of Rotarians. I say marginal because that is where the Rotary Fellowshipshave always been placed, in limbo. Are they really part of Rotary or not?

I would endorse this concept as the natural extension of the Fellowship
program, for the expansion of the concept of Rotarian service and as a
membership enhancing initiative.

Harold




Lou Piconi

John,

You were very kind and I was honored to receive your invitation to respond on your proposals for RI Fellowships. I have not responded until now for a number of reasons. Please permit me to offer a few thoughts without going into or trying to edit any of your detailed notes.

First, I applaud your efforts to seek advice from others experienced in Fellowships. When on the RI Board, I had found the history and traditions of many of our programs and policies lost or conveniently misplaced. I learned this after some decisions where made, unfortunately.

Additionally, The emphasis to create a Strategic Plan that lists the programs emphasied of Rotary and The Rotary Foundation has many pluses. However, there are
Rotarians and some Rotary leaders that will use influence with others to support their
"pet" service project(s) under a banner of a RI Fellowship. It seemed to me that when money for matching grants became tight, many used new fellowships to put pressure on Rotary leaders to recognize their pet cause and obtain matching funds. I know a few things, one of which no person or even the RI Board can fully control Rotarians or Rotary clubs. I also believe that Fellowships is a tool that the RI Board could and should use to help unite Rotarians globally in friendship - service will certainly follow.

I should be very honest and up front with you here in saying I opposed most cause related fellowships when they came to the board. This may be considered "old Rotary". I based this rationale on a number of experiences. I recall the many conventions that had Fellowship booths that drew the attention of first time convention goers and future club leaders. Many of them came home and told their Rotary club of the Fellowship for Coin Collectors, etc. It built their enthusiasm for Rotary, was an enabler to unite Rotarians with considerable financial differences, did not ask them for another contribution and served the association well. I know stories of those who met at a convention fellowship booth that later generated youth exchanges and GSE teams.

I would hope that any new or revised policy keeps it as simple as possible. Your new approach may be just what Rotary needs.

Thank you and best wishes for your efforts . I look forward to seeing you in Anaheim and sharing the joy of our centennial convention.

Best regards,

Louis Piconi,



PRIP Charles C. Keller
Rotary International
P.O. Box 547
California, PA
15419
U.S.A.

Dear Chuck:

Thank you for your thoughtful letter dated September 7, 2004. I apologize for my tardiness in responding. As I am sure you are aware, September has been a busy month in Zone 22!

I share your interest and concern for the evolving issues concerning fellowship groups. Having been involved in six or eight “fellowships” and having formed and nurtured one for approximately ten years, I have a sense for the structure as well as an appreciation for the enduring value of a formal means by which Rotarians can enjoy fellowship at the international level.

Clearly the interest and growth of fellowship groups in recent years is indicative of a void which is being filled by various Rotary entities. This, in itself, is a commentary on the needs of Rotarians to find a conduit through which fellowship can be enjoyed. The philosophical question which has always interested me is: which comes first, fellowship or service? Does fellowship stimulate within us a need to provide service to our fellow man or in the process of undertaking a service activity, do we get as much satisfaction from the fellowship of our fellow Rotarians who are similarly engaged?

There has always been an underlying theme that each fellowship group might have a “service activity” associated with it. The “flyers” deliver eyeglasses, the “canoeists” clean up waterways, the “bird watchers” take garbage bags with them on their treks into the wilderness. The point you make is valid. At what point does a fellowship group become “project-oriented”? Is there some line across which an activity might be described as being more in the nature of a “cause-related” undertaking by a variety of zealots for reasons other than the pure enjoyment of the fellowship arising from the collegiality in the service activity? At what point does the fellowship group begin to encroach and create prejudice (time, human resources, financial) to other Rotary programs?

It might fairly be argued that the fellowship groups (i.e. the medical related ones - fight against AIDS, population concerns, etc.) become increasingly popular because there is no other Rotary entity that provides the scope or opportunity to address issues of human need.

The International committees and task forces are ill-equipped and have an uncertain mandate to undertake these activities. Similarly, the scope of activity undertaken on a club to club or district to district basis is limited by geography and numbers of people. At the same time the “menu of service” opportunities and “structured” programs of Rotary are offered only as suggestions to clubs and do not, in themselves, create programs at the international level. Consequently, the void is being filled by imaginative and energetic Rotarians who want to utilize the “Rotary network” for purposes of “doing good in the world” with or without the help of the Rotary Foundation.

These competing areas of interest are allowing many Rotarians to focus their interests and efforts for service. Your penultimate question: “Is the business and function of the fellowship groups to continue to be “fellowship” or is it to become service or something else?”, is relevant. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why a committee has been established for the purpose of studying the fellowship groups.

At the moment, the principle question before the committee will be whether or not to permit fundraising by fellowship groups for purposes other than the administration of the group itself. I dare say, if the $25,000.00 rule is permitted to stand, fellowship groups will simply find a mechanism to avoid the Rotary policy. This has already happened in at least two fellowship groups to my knowledge. In those cases, the fellowship groups used unrelated NGO’s for purposes of raising the funds and complementing the program. In many ways, this in itself is harmful to Rotary because it reduces Rotary’s ability to enhance its public image and deflects activity from the fellowship group itself into another NGO. The loss of energy and funds to Rotary International is a concern. At the same time, to allow these entities to undertake these major service projects directly, raises issues such as third party liability and Rotary’s inability to control the release of public information in the name of Rotary and, of course, protection of the Rotary “marks”.

So, you have my “thoughts on the subject.” They too are evolving and I will be following with great interest the work of the committee and the action to be taken by the Board at the November meeting.

The fellowships committee under the current chairman, Mark Wong, is very active and provides excellent communication among its members. In the last year I have noticed that the committee has not recommended fellowship groups which replicate either current programs of Rotary or the Rotary Foundation. For example, it has rejected the notion of a United Nations fellowship group on the theory that Rotary already has a committee that is directly connected to the United Nations. It has also rejected the “International Service” fellowship group as being too general and replicating an inherent “program” of R.I. At the same time, the WCS Resource Network service fellowship group has been disbanded in part because of the confusion between the fellowship group and a structured program of Rotary International.

Again, thank you for your penetrating glance at the issue of fellowships. Fran and I did indeed miss you and Carol at the Zone 27-28 Institute. However, we look forward to seeing you soon and, until then, wish you best personal regards.

Sincerely,

John J. Eberhard




RI Board Meeting – February, 2005

Suggested decision of the Programs Committee:

Statement:

Director John Eberhard has referred a suggestion to the programs committee that would separate the “service” or “cause-related” fellowship groups from the recreational and vocational fellowship groups. The programs committee agrees with this change to the structured programs of RI and requests the Board to endorse this suggestion. Given the current code of policy prohibition from creating a new structured program without eliminating an existing one, the proposal is to have these organized “service fellowship” groups be henceforth know as “Rotary Service Affiliates” (RSA) and become official programs of Rotary International sheltered for policy considerations under the Structured Program of “World Community Service”. The creation of this Rotary service delivery entity under the WCS Structured Program would separate the “cause related” (or service fellowship groups) from the traditional Recreational and Vocational Groups that would continue to be known as Fellowship Groups. An RSA would be subject to policies created to facilitate the enhancement of effective International Rotary service

By adopting this proposal, “Fellowships”, by definition, would return to their historic role of catering exclusively to the vocational and recreational interests of their members. Any service rendered by the Fellowship Group is incidental to its principal objective.

The distinguishing threshold would be whether or not the group was formed and conducts its activity in a way that primarily shares common recreational or vocational interests. A RSA on the other hand would be formed and function with a specific service activity focus and notwithstanding the incidental fellowship experienced by the members, would be task or service-delivery oriented.

It is understood that President Glenn Estess has reviewed the Eberhard proposal and has agreed to form an ad hoc committee to study its merits for the purpose of determining the relevance to the strategic planning process and determine if any COL action is required to implement the change.

The background information is attached.

Suggested Decision of the Programs Committee

The Board agrees that:

1. “Rotary Service Affiliate” (RSA) shall become an official program of Rotary International and sheltered for policy considerations under the Structured Program of “World Community Service”.

2. The general Secretary shall identify existing Fellowship Groups that have been formed or are functioning in a way which is intended to be service oriented for the purpose of having them recognized as “Rotary Service Affiliates” (RSA)

3. in principal, an RSA is framed within the following guidelines:

a. A RSA is a Rotary entity engaged in service oriented activity.

b. A RSA would be an incorporated body with constitution and bylaws approved by the General Secretary of RI and in accordance with RI Policy

c. A RSA as an RI WCS program would receive the same services from the RI Secretariat as any other structured program, including space at the annual international convention for meeting rooms and space in the House of Friendship on the same terms as other Rotary entities

d. While not covered by RI Insurance, an individual RSA is encouraged to assess its own risk exposures and secure coverage as appropriate

e. The membership of an RSA is restricted to individual members of Rotary Clubs, spouses of Rotarians and Rotaractors

f. No circularization or financial solicitation by a RSA shall be allowed for commercial or other purposes not in conformity with the code of policies

g. The RSA would be recognized in the Official Directory of RI and be authorized to create its own website for purpose of conducting it “business”

h. The RSA would be subject to the Code of Policy in respect of all requirements associated with the use of the RI Marks.

i. The RSA operating under the umbrella of World Community Service would be subject to this cooperative relations policy of RI.

j. A RSA, on application, could be recognized by the Rotary Foundation for purposes of extending matched Grants and 3-H Grants to the RSA on terms and conditions as may be established by the trustees.

k. The RSA would report the G/S annually on its activities in a prescribed format including a listing of current and ongoing cooperative relationships or sponsorships and programs undertaken during the year

l. Annually and within 3 months of its year end, the RSA shall file a financial report on a prescribed format established by the general secretary


4. this decision be referred to the General Secretary for the purpose of recommending the necessary correlative changes in the code of policies at the November 2005 meeting of the Board.

5. the decision be referred to the President’s new Ad Hoc Committee to Study Rotary Service Affiliates and the relevant strategic planning study committees for report back to the programs committee before the November, 2005 Board meeting.

6. the programs committee report to the board on its recommendation on the final terms of reference of RSA at the November Board meeting

7. The purpose and intent of the referrals is to have the Board approve the respective policy amendments for implementation of the RSA program of World Community Service to become effective as of January 1, 2006



Background


Rotary Fellowships started as a Programme of Rotary International to encourage recreational and vocational activities by Rotarians and to establish a network of Rotarians though having diverse background but having common interest. Rotary Fellowships also encourage people to join Rotary.

Over a period of time the fellowships also started taking active interest in humanitarian concerns as well and thus perceived to be competing with Rotary Foundation Programames and Presidential emphases. Two of the fellowships “Rotarians fight against AIDS” and “Population Concerns” have become increasingly popular and a lot of lobbying activity has been observed recently for having standing committees etc. Not only that, Fellowship of Rotarians fight against AIDS, has been recently successful to get a substantial grant from USAID as well. They are implementing a well conceived “health concerns” program with highly competent and recognized non-rotary entities in a way that that no other Rotary entity is capable, at the moment, of doing. These included RI Task Forces or RI Committees which are not structures in a way to actually carry our projects.

This has raised some eyebrows with the Rotary International Leadership. Firstly The Rotary Foundation is approaching the same agencies for its programmes, Secondly what will happen if a liability arises out of any such action of Fellowships.

“Service” Fellowship Groups are “Rotary-related” in that they are made up of Rotarians, spouses and Rotaractors who are not involved primarily as a result of a club initiative or exclusively for “fellowship”. They simply comprise of dedicated and passionate Rotarians who have a particular need (interest) in serving mankind by assisting to “do good in the world” with a group of like-minded individuals. They are focused. They often have specialized expertise in the service area in which they are involved. In the words of Rotary’s Strategic plan, the groups have “sharpened the program focus of Rotary” by concentrating on a particular activity.

These like-minded Rotarians have tremendous pent up energy, resources and determination to contribute to their favorite clause. Many are enthusiasts who simply want to participate inside a Rotary entity to serve mankind. Some simply passively support the “cause” by being members or by making a financial contribution. At the present time Rotary International does not provide an appropriate vehicle for this growing contingent of individual Rotarians to carry their service tools

Among the Fellowship Groups that comprise the growing list of cause-related entities are:

o Rotary Fellowship for Fighting Aids
o Rotary Fellowship of Disaster Managers and Responders
o Rotary Fellowship of Environment
o Rotary Fellowship for Eye Care
o International Fellowship of Rotarians Affected by Hearing Loss
o Humanitarian Service Resource Fellowship
o Fellowship for Mine Action
o Rotarian Fellowship of Multiple Sclerosis Awareness
o Rotarian Fellowship for Population and Development
o International Fellowship of Rotarian Dental Volunteers
o International Fellowship for the Prevention of Drug Abuse
o International Fellowship of Rotarian Dental Volunteers
o Fellowship of Literacy Providers

It may be that the General Secretary can identify others.

On one side we have seen the tremendous success of networking in the case of Polio eradication, which has brought great recognition to Rotary as a service organization and its capability to work through its network of 30,000 clubs with 1.2 million members in almost all parts of the world. In many countries, Governments and other service organizations have started approaching Rotary to join hands for their community welfare projects. On one hand fellowships can not compete with Rotary Foundation but at the same time we can not let go these National, regional initiatives which Rotary today is capable of and is sought for.

In June 2004 (decision 257) the Board requested the G/S to develop a revised cooperative relationship policy based on the Rotary Code section 11.050.6 that would apply to all Rotary entities as defined in Code Section 1.010 (point 12). The Board deferred consideration of this matter to it’s February 2005 meeting. It is suggested that an RSA operating under the umbrella of World Community Service would be subject to this policy.

Rotary has 9 programs called “Structured Programs” (which many Rotarians refer to as “official programs of Rotary”. Rotary’s web site proclaims:

“Rotary International offers a broad range of humanitarian, intercultural, and educational programs and activities designed to improve the human condition and advance the organization's ultimate goal of world understanding and peace. Nine structured programs and nine service opportunities help clubs and districts achieve their service goals in their own communities and in communities abroad, fostering fellowship and goodwill in the process.”

The Structured Programs include:
• Rotary Fellowships
• World Community Service

This proposal provides recognition of an RSA’s as a service delivery vehicle for WCS for the purpose of undertaking international service projects. As is presently the case with the “cause related” Fellowship Groups, the make-up of an RSA would be of members from clubs from all over the world united in the determination to serve a particular cause while being required to continue to be active members of their own Rotary Clubs. The RSA’s would be expected to continue to utilize the Rotary club network just as do the present Fellowship Groups

This is a changing World and Rotary has to adopt ways and means to meet aspirations of the people and not miss the role it is destined for its service activities. There is a need to create another vehicle for such associations, which are not complex like multi-district activities, or do not require a plethora of formalities and permissions from Rotary International on the use of term “Rotary” and also at the same time it should safeguard any future liability accruable to Rotary International arising out of the activities of such special vehicles.


RRSA Proposal
The “Eberhard Proposal” circulated in October, 2004 has been, in part, circulated to the Ad Hoc Jim Lacy committee. The acronym RRSA (Rotary Registered Service Affiliate) was changed (as were a number of the details after circulation to several Rotarians). A revised proposal entitled “Rotary Service Affiliates” with a board action plan was distributed to the Programs Committee in February 2005. The group circularized as a trial balloon included the RI Fellowships Committee, RI Board members and six past RI Presidents. In addition, about 10 Rotarians who, to the knowledge of the writer, have long and extensive experience in Fellowship activity were included. Chairpersons of the most active Service Fellowship Groups were included. The results were surprising. Somehow, the number of respondents grew (the power of Email)! There were 48 responses received. The entire list and replies would be available to the committee from RI staff. Since the circulation did not specify a question/answer format, the table below represents a subjective extraction of comments from individual responses. While the report itself did not lend itself to statistically scientific results, certain themes became evident. In a separate report, I categorized the results according to the following headings:

To include your Rotarian Action Group's history send a message at www.historycomment.org