Rotarian Action Groups

John J. Eberhard, QC, BA, LLB, LLD (H.C.),

10934 Oxbow Drive,

RR#3 Komoka, Ontario

Canada, N0L1R0

Mr. John Kenny,

President of Rotary International,

One Rotary Centre.

December 2009

Dear President John.

            I hope that this finds you well and enjoying a wonderful Family Christmas at home. Fran and I will have an extended family gathering with many friends. It is a special time of year!

            It has been my intention to communicate with you directly concerning decision B-14-a from the November Board meeting. I regret this taking more time than expected. I have participated in an email discussion with other members of the RI RAGs Committee and the broader RAGs Community. On the Board decision, I have informally communicated with a number of the RAGs Chairs, with whom I have developed a close consultative relationship over a long period of time. Representations will come to you in a consolidated form as a basis for the discussion in San Diego from the 5 representative RAGs that you have invited.

            This is a transformational time for Rotary and a challenging time for all NGO’s in a competitive world. It is my considered view that Rotary must be prepared to strengthen its service strategies so as to more competently compete with so many other others for human and tangible resources. Change in an organization is never easy or without its bumps. But change is inevitable and needs process. Organizational change is a lot like nursing – it takes time, determined, thoughtful leadership and nurturing.

            The initiative taken by the November Board meeting is a milestone in the evolution of the RAGs Program. It provides the beginning of a process! I salute you for this!

            Please see the attached brief. I hope that it won’t bore you - perhaps, even make for interesting reading on one of your extended flights!.

            I wish you every success as you begin the final half of your great journey in Rotary. Fran and I look forward to seeing you in Montreal!

Best Wishes,

John Eberhard

Cc: Eric Adamson, Fred Hann, John Germ, David Liddiatt,  David Morgan, RIPE Ray Klinginsmith, RIPN Kalyan Banerjee; RI RAGs Committee

INDEX

Letter to President Kenny                                                                                          1

DRRAG response to November Board Decision: B-14-a                                          3

Brief to President Kenny from the DRRAG Board of Directors                              8

Disaster Relief and Rotary                                                                                         11

Pooled Fund memorial (August 2009) revisited                                                         17

The Future of the Rotarian Action Group (RAGs) Program                                      23

            Resource Groups and RAGs                                                                          25

Observations of the Current Rotarian Action Group Program                                   27

            RAGs as delivery agent partners for Rotary Clubs                                        27

            Membership                                                                                                    28

            Creating Awareness                                                                                        29

            Capacity to Serve                                                                                            30

            RAGs and Rotary’s Public Image                                                                  31

            Rotary International Network (RIN)                                                              31

            Governance and Accountability                                                                     32

            Funding Issues                                                                                                32

            Where Ordinary Rotarians Want To Be                                                         33

            Future Vision Plan and Rotary’s Strategic Plan                                             34

            Rotarian Responses to November Board Decision                                         35

            Rotarian Responses to Jesse Allerton’s Memorandum                                   53

Appendix #1: Principals of International Development                                             58

DRRAG response to November Board decision:

                                                SUMMARY

1.     Disaster Relief – Rotarian Action Group (DRRAG) agrees with the strategy for a “Pilot RAGs” program

2.     Disaster Relief would be a widely acclaimed candidate for such a pilot

3.     Disaster Management encompasses all of the strategic goals of RI and indirectly, all of the foci of the Future Vision Plan priorities. It clearly has economic and community development as a rebuilding goal following a regional disaster.

4.     DRRAG agrees that a mechanism to receive and distribute funds from the Rotary Foundation is a constructive initiative and suggests that outside of the USA similar arrangements could be made to accommodate Associate Foundations and Country specific tax regimes where funds are being raised.

5.     The communications policy needs to be re-examined.

6.     RAGs should be recognized as the prototypes for Rotary’s Corporate Service strategy at such time as Polio Plus is completed. Now is the time when capacity building through Global Networking Groups needs to be encouraged and supported. 

Final Draft Decisions of the November 2009 Board of Directors Meeting: (Comments by Board members of DRRAG)

B-14-a.   Report of the Joint Committee:  Rotarian Action Groups Pilot Project

DECISION:  The Board

1.   Requests President Kenny to appoint an ad hoc committee of three directors and two trustees to meet with up to five representatives of the Rotarian Action Groups to develop the details of a new pilot project consistent with the principles discussed at this meeting.  The pilot project is to include a few Rotarian Action Groups as selected by the RI Board from the RAGs that apply for the pilot project and that agree to comply with the following guidelines:

·         As of this date, there is little detail as to the policy reasons for this decision. It would be hoped that the meeting contemplated in San Diego will allow for a full and frank discussion about the current polices and how they can be modified in the best interests of RI though the growth and support of the RAG program (including DRRAG) interacting with Clubs and Districts.

·         DRRAG agrees with the strategy of “pilot RAGS” and respectfully requests that Disaster Relief, Rotarian Action Group (with a new name now being considered by the Board of DRRAG) will be selected as a pilot.

a.       the revised RAGs will serve as available resources for RI, TRF, and the Clubs and Districts in one or more of the six areas of focus named in the Future Vision Plan;

There is more than one RAG that links with each the six areas of focus. It is suggested that there be a consolidation of these entities or at a minimum a rationalization of their activities.

Most RAGs already are held out as resources. The value of this linkage needs to be promoted at the highest levels of Rotary.

Making the transition from an RI based “program” to a Foundation alignment will have the beneficial impact of a closer alignment with the humanitarian programs of TRF and thus appropriately “connect” the RAGs with those Clubs that are accessing TRF funding. Since RAGs should be organized to support the Clubs with their projects, this makes eminently good sense! Although the decision is short on details, the idea of funding through this mechanism will support this relationship.

Disaster Relief is not explicitly recognized by Rotary International. It does not have a Resource Group. While it encompasses all of the strategic goals of RI and indirectly, all of the foci of the Future Vision Plan priorities, it clearly has economic and community development as a rebuilding goal following a regional disaster. Accordingly, it is best classified under FVP item #6

Disaster management encompasses a long term goal of both economic (recovery) and community development. In many ways, it is the tip of the spear and carries with it a need to utilize all of the expertise that is implicit in the other active RAGs. It grows Rotary’s capacity to prepare and to respond in a coordinated way. It does this by accessing Rotary’s unique vocational service commitment and optimizes the development of leadership talents to ensure continuity and consistency of service during a disaster. The needs are often in areas of disease prevention, immediate shelter and transitional housing, disease and injury treatment, water and sanitation issues, community health and a vision of rebuilding opportunities for basic education for affected children.

So in a very real way, DRRAG is a penetrating cross-cutting theme and has universal appeal to the generosity and vocational background of all Rotarians.

b.   each of the revised RAGs will be controlled and managed by a seven-member board of directors. Four members of the RAG board will be selected by RI, including the chairman, and the other three board members will be elected by members of the RAG at its annual meetings. The other officers and agents of the RAG will be selected by the RAG board;

·         By RI taking a leadership role in RAGS”, they will become more prominent and replace the Resource Groups while still maintaining their own mantra of service and “partners” for Clubs and Districts. This will be good for Rotary

·         Some organizational and structural issues will have to be addressed (i.e. DRRAG will need to modify it's by-laws to fit the proposed officer and board appointments and make the changes with the Companies Branch, State of Illinois)

·         Self governance will include the value of Presidential appointments which need then to result in a careful selection process ensuring the best person suited for the job. These appointments need to be considered by an objective and knowledgeable observer of the particular service sector

·         DRRAG programs may be limited to those permitted within the policies and guidelines of TRF.  This may be a limiting factor (i.e. cannot build buildings? pay salaries?). This can be avoided so as to allow best practices (not funding issues) drive the service activity with appropriate cooperation from TRF.

·         Funding of RAG activity would have to segregate between individual projects (which is often the case) and funding put in a Donor Advised Fund (DAF) which requires the RAG to establish a 501c3 to receive and distribute funds outside the USA. TRF DAFs can only transfer funds to another USA based 501c3. This suggestion seems to be written from an entirely USA perspective. Similar arrangements would have to be made with Associate Foundations and Country specific tax regimes where funds are being raised.

·         The policy suggests that the RAG will continue to be restricted from communicating with Rotarians and Clubs. If RI recognizes the value of the RAG acting in the best interests of Rotary as a whole, (in the delivery of resource value to Rotary), it must also give the RAG the ability to empower Clubs and individual Rotarians. This will require a modification of the communications policies that should evolve in time with thoughtful and careful planning.

·         It will be important for RI to find a mechanism to educate and inform the Clubs as the service opportunities available through the individual RAGs in which the Clubs and Districts can participate. Typically, these would be broadly based international programs (like Polio Plus) and the Clubs in the RIN would play a revitalized role in participating in international service under a cohesive service umbrella – effectively and efficiently doing their individual projects but planning, implementing and reporting in a congruent manner in the context of recognized principles of international development. This requires strong leadership at the top of each RAG and the ability to freely communicate with Rotary Clubs.

·         This is an opportunity to begin the longer term vision of what “corporate program(s)” will follow Polio. The best of the RAGs, as they mature within the RIN, will provide the answer to this haunting question.

d.   the revised RAGs will be subject to RI circularization policies, which limit direct contacts with Rotarians, Clubs, and Districts; 

·         This is a point that needs to be thoughtfully addressed.

·         In the short term, alternate options to the current policy would include an educational mechanism in the usual Rotary way:  starting with DGE’s at the I.A, with informational materials flowing through PETS, District Assemblies and Club Communication

·         By being the toll-keepers of communication in the Rotary world, “Corporate RI” prevents the future of Rotary from truly being in the hands of our clubs and Districts

·         DRRAG would be satisfied with a reversion to the former rules and would happily participate in the educational process to better inform the Rotary world of the activities of the RAGs generally and DRRAG specifically

e.   each of the revised RAGs will establish a TRF donor advised fund, and all charitable funds received by the RAG will be placed in such fund; 

·         This is of value primarily to USA residents and the policy needs to benefit the rest of the world as well. The possibility of a “restricted fund” with the option of having a DAF is circumstances call for this tax related mechanism would be an option.

·         DRRAG has proposed a “pooled fund” mechanism. The details of that “memorial” is attached to this brief. It is not dissimilar to this proposal

2.   Agrees that if the pilot project is successful, the revised structure will be offered to the other Rotarian Action Groups. The ad hoc committee may consider the possibility of a new name to describe the revised RAGs in order to distinguish them from the RAGs that chose not to adopt the revised structure.

                        DRRAG supports this notion and in fact is now preparing a Board resolution to change its own name. If chosen to be a “revised RAG”, would cooperate fully in the name change process.

B-14-b.   Report of the Joint Committee:  Moratorium on Rotarian Action Groups

DECISION:  The Board agrees to extend its moratorium on reviewing new Rotarian Action Group applications until its June 2010 meeting.

            Given the current discussion, this seems like a prudent recommendation. DRRAG supports the moratorium

Brief to President John Kenny

            It is hoped that this brief in advance of the “Future of RAGs” meeting to be held at the International Assembly, January 2010 will provide some context for what is hoped will be a constructive dialog among those present.

            It has been my intention to communicate with you directly concerning decision B-14-a from the November Board meeting. I regret taking more time than expected. I have participated in an email discussion with other members of the RI RAGs Committee and the broader RAGs Community.

            On the Board decision, I have informally communicated with a number of the RAGs Chairs, with whom I have developed a close consultative relationship over a long period of time. Representations will come to you in a consolidated form as a basis for the discussion in San Diego from the 5 representative RAGs that you have invited.

            I hope during some extended flight in your extensive travel schedule you will take the time to try to understand the perspective that arises from this broad consultation process.

            This is a transformational time for Rotary and a challenging time for all NGO’s in a competitive world. It is my considered view that Rotary must be prepared to strengthen its service strategies so as to more competently compete with so many other others for human and tangible resources.

            The initiative taken by the November Board meeting is a milestone in the evolution of the RAGs Program. I salute you for this!

Background:

            I write this in my capacity as chair of the Disaster Relief – Rotarian Action Group (DRRAG) board. The board has generated a consensus as to how to respond to the RI Board decision. We hope that you will take our representations in the same thoughtful way as that in which they were generated. Hopefully, this consensus will be compelling as 22 of the Board members and Advisory Board members of DRRAG are senior leaders of Rotary with significant combined experience.    

            The RI Board decision reminded me that it was 5 years ago this week that I woke up in the middle of the night realizing that a policy change was necessary in RI to accommodate some of the health-related “service” Fellowship Groups (RFFA, P&D in particular) in the mainstream. It may have turned out to be a whirlpool! Fellowship Groups had been under siege during the previous year as a result of insurance and indemnity obligations imposed by the RI Board.

            When I penned the original policy recommendation that gave birth to the program and advanced memorandum (without the input of staff – for what seemed at the time, obvious reasons) for purposes of getting the RAGs program approved by the Board I had no idea what a maelstrom would have been created! In retrospect, it might have seemed prudent to have fully engaged the staff in the formative days of the program development but the decision of June, 2005 would never had happened if this course of action had been pursued.

            By solving the Fellowships problem in segregating the “action” groups into a separate program, it was originally conceived that the new entities would become part of the “structured programs” of Rotary. The name RAGs came about on a proposed by an Hoc Committee appointed by President Glenn and chaired by PRIP Jim Lacy (and on which now RIPE Ray served) to comment on the proposal.

            The Ad Hoc Committee report back to the Board proposed the creation a new and separate program for Rotary. Under the umbrella of Global Networking Groups we opened up a visionary opportunity to allow special groups of Rotarians to focus for the first time, in a coordinated way on many sectoral service areas to provide assistance to Clubs. Unlike the earlier “Task Force” structure that made good use of the Rotary International Network (RIN), RAGs differed in that they were intended to have a more permanent structure that allows for longer term planning and congruent policy development. They are without the advantage of Presidentially appointed Regional, Zone and District appointees which facilitated communication throughout the Rotary world in the Task Force regime.

            By May 2006, eighty-six Global Networking Groups had 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.

A 2006 Summery of Code of Policies by topic stated:

“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 1^st 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

            The number of RAGs now approved by the Board has expanded and the policies have changed – to the detriment of the program and arguably, to RI.

            There have been three important changes to the policy framework since that time.

            In 2008, the February Board meeting took the recommendation of the RI RAGs Committee and clarified the role expected to be played by RAGs in expanding their penetration into Districts; expanding their membership base and confirming the requirement to work through Clubs and Districts.

            So, it is not surprising that Rotary, under your leadership, has seen the need to step back and examine the role and relationship of this Program to other priorities within our beloved organization and how the Rotary Foundation might benefit from the growth of this program.

            In June of 2009, the Board passed what has come to be known within the Council of RAG Chairs as the “GAG order” – prohibiting RAGs from communicating with non-members. Accordingly since that time there has been a limitation placed on RAGs (leadership and members) in that no contact, for any reason, can be initiated with Rotarians, Clubs or Districts. This has been said by many (see feedback from Rotarians at the bottom of this brief) to be the “death knell” for RAGs. At the very least, it has prevented RAGs from fulfilling the other requirements found in the Code of Policies to expand their membership and to work with Clubs.

            In November, 2009, a review of the RAGs program and possible collaboration between RAGs and TRF has been suggested. A meeting called to explore this possibility is being held by Senior leaders and RAG leaders at the International Assembly. 

Disaster Relief

            Disaster Relief has been a soft spot for Rotarians for decades. It encompassed a long term goal of both economic (recovery) and community development. In many ways, it is the tip of the spear and carries with it a need to utilize all of the expertise that is implicit in the RAGs that increase capacity to respond in a coordinated way. It does this by accessing Rotary’s unique vocational service commitment and optimizes the development of leadership talents to ensure continuity and consistency of service before and during a disaster at the Club level. The needs are often in areas of disease prevention, immediate shelter and transitional housing, disease and injury treatment, water and sanitation issues, community health and a vision of rebuilding opportunities for basic education for affected children.

            Clubs have done a wonderful job in responding and rebuilding in their communities. We know this anecdotally and we know of some great projects that have evolved out of Club and District involvements in the community development that taken place well after the disaster has left the front page news. Regrettably, most of these success stories are not known in the international context. There is no central reporting facility. There is no methodology for quantitative of qualitative reporting of results indicators. There is no congruent planning or reporting at the international level. DRRAG has the methodology but without the means or policy framework to make this happen. Rotary is the loser on the public relations front. The experts within DRRAG are functus.

            In a very real way, DRRAG has a penetrating cross-cutting and universal appeal to Rotarians. In a way I am sorry that whatever vision I may have had 5 years ago is forgotten in the wake of recent events. I have rationalized that Disaster Relief was not be invited to your up-coming meeting. Of course, it is not explicitly recognized by Rotary International. It does not have a Resource Group. While it encompasses all of the strategic goals of RI and indirectly, all of the foci of the Future Vision Plan priorities, it clearly has economic and community development as a rebuilding goal following a regional disaster.

            Disaster Relief should be an explicit part of Rotary’s strategic plan. Quite simply, Rotarians will not allow the senior management of Rotary to ignore those who are caught up in a natural disaster. Rotarians are naturally generous and want to reach out to help those who are in need for no fault of their own.

Just this week, I received this email from your own area of the world:

We in Rotary District 1190 have been in the midst of the floods in Cumbria, NW England in the past few weeks. We have been manning reception centres, collecting and distributing clothing and furniture to flooded families and supporting local communities wherever we can. I have been involved professionally in trying to reunite communities "cut-off" as a result of collapsed and damaged highway bridges.

Any help we can give or receive from others to ensure that Rotary is best prepared for the increasing number of these natural disasters is to be welcomed.

Regards and Seasons Greetings

Kevin Walsh, D1190 UK

            The fact that Disaster Relief is excluded from a Rotary focus is inconsistent with the historic response of Rotarians and Rotary Clubs from around the world. With no central guidance or encouragement, Rotarians have responded generously to natural disasters for over 100 years.

            During the First World War, my own club joined with hundreds of others in sending “care packages” to Europe. In 1993, under the direction of RIP Cliff Dochterman, box cars full of blankets and canned goods were shipped to Bosnia from all over the Rotary world because of his call for united action to help those who were cold and hungry. In 2005, there was a weak-kneed call to Rotary to send money to the Red Cross after the great Tsunami. Rotarians did that but more, they wanted a “Rotary Response”. So unsolicited funds came to the Foundation (a million dollars from Canada). The Foundation reluctantly (not knowing what else to do) set up the South Asia Fund with absolutely no plans to spend the money. Several years later, the funds were spent. This is when many Rotary leaders felt that a coordinated approach to disaster was called for within Rotary. DRRAG was born.

            It bears repeating: While there is no RI facility or capacity to track this history, Disaster Relief – Rotarian Action Group (DRRAG) has calculated that in the past 5 years an estimated $165,000,000 has been contributed by Rotarians to Disaster Relief activities (since the great Tsunami in 2004/5).

            This does not include local contributions or contributions in kind which are significant. A large part of these funds have been raised by the “club-supported” independent NGO Trust called “ShelterBox”. On a per/Rotarian basis, this is far greater than the Rotary Foundations track record for other restricted funds. It reflects the impulse within Rotarians to respond to a needed cause (like Polio) in lieu of a non-specific program including a lot of projects (i.e. like scholarships and one-off matched grants).

            This amount of money is far greater that all of the money raised by all of the other Action Groups combined. For this reason alone, disaster relief should not be ignored by Rotary. For this reason, the Foundation would realize great benefits by forging a relationship with the many Disaster Relief and Rotary rebuilding organizations (that already exist in isolation) under an umbrella Rotary organization

            It is clear that Rotarians would respond is a significant way if the Rotarian Action Group itself were allowed to function by the Rotary International Board of Directors in the congruent fashion that was contemplated when it received approval in 2007 and pursuant to those sections of the Code of Policies that call for it to implement its mandate through Clubs and Districts.

It was gratifying to see in the December article that illustrates this point. Arnold R. Grahl reported for the Rotary International News (21 December 2009) :
 

“Top: Betty Muliadinata, assistant governor of District 3400, RI President John Kenny (second from right), and Natalia Soebagjo, past district governor, in front of a mobile library during the dedication of a health center at the youth complex in Aceh. Bottom: The entrance of the health center. Photos courtesy of Natalia Soebagjo

Five years after a powerful tsunami devastated communities along the coast of the Indian Ocean, Rotary projects continue to contribute to long-term recovery.

Shortly after the tsunami hit on 26 December 2004, The Rotary Foundation established Solidarity in South Asia fund, coordinating US$5.9 million in donations toward recovery efforts throughout the region. The Foundation also awarded more than $480,000 in humanitarian grants in India, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. Many individual Rotary club and district foundations also contributed from their own funds.

RI President John Kenny visited Banda Aceh, Indonesia, in late November to inaugurate one result of those recovery projects: a health center that is part of a larger $1.9 million youth complex on about an acre of donated land.

"The work you have done here in Indonesia is a vivid example of how Rotary comes together to achieve so much," Kenny said. "In the first hours and days after the tsunami, Rotary volunteers were among the first to respond on-site. In the days, weeks, and months to follow, Rotarians the world over rallied to send all manner of assistance.

"One thing that impresses me, over and over, is how these programs focus not on short-term satisfaction, or reward for the giver, or recognition," Kenny said. "The best Rotary programs and projects focus on helping build for the future -- and making lives better for generations."

The two-story health center occupies 5,860 square yards of land in the nearby village of Khaju, set aside by government officials who were impressed by the mobilization of Rotarian volunteers in the days after the tsunami. The facility joins an orphanage that opened three years ago, dedicated to child survivors of the disaster. A two-story dormitory for university students is under construction. Water purification and treatment systems serve the entire complex.

Rotary's impact extends from Indonesia to India, Sri Lanka, and Thailand, where projects have rebuilt schools, provided classroom supplies, secured boats and fishing equipment to restore local economies, and helped construct and furnish hospitals and shelters for the homeless.

Here are a few of the ongoing projects:

• Two buses have been converted into mobile classrooms in the Aceh Province of Indonesia, bringing primary and secondary education to students across the region. Each bus stops at designated locations a few hours a day, giving students free access to a librarian, books, and multimedia materials. The project is supported by the Solidarity in South Asia fund and the SIKIB, an organization made up of the wives of ministers in the Indonesian government.

• In India, the Solidarity in South Asia relief committee approved $30,000 to send a team of fishermen to Vietnam for advanced training in fishing, sea farming, fish processing, and marketing.

• District 3220 raised more than $12 million to build 25 schools in Sri Lanka to replace ones that were destroyed by the tsunami. As the project nears its end, 22 schools are back in service, providing education for about 12,000 children.

• The Solidarity in South Asia fund supported a rehabilitation center for tsunami victims in the Khlong Nakha Wildlife Sanctuary in Thailand, providing food, lodging, education, and counseling for those who lost loved ones or whose homes were damaged or destroyed. “

            This report illustrates very nicely that the withdrawn (at the suggestion of the G/S) RI Board memorial suggesting a “pooled fund” becomes extremely relevant to the November Board decision. I have attached the memorial here as support for the notion that DRRAG could well collaborate with TRF on the handling of this particular fund as contemplated by the Board decision.  

            The recent letter from Cumbria highlights one aspect of the disaster continuum – preparedness. It cries out in the hope of the Rotary world ensuring that all Clubs and Districts might assist in community service projects that address this preparation theme which is one of the DRRAG “program principals” endorsed by the RI Board when it approved the Disaster Relief - Rotarian Action Group. As you will know, there are a number of components to the “program” which was applied for by DRRAG in its Statement of Purpose. It included responses that are simply identified as:

·         Preparedness training and assistance to Clubs in a standardized “best practices” approach to disaster preparation

·          immediate response,

·         temporary and transitional housing,

·         food, water and clothing delivery,

·         recovery efforts,

·          rebuilding and

·         community development

            At this time, DRRAG is essentially non-functional in the context of its statement of purpose. It is impossible to comply with its mandate under the current rules. It has no means of raising operational funding and no means of expanding its membership base. It is not being permitted to communicate with the Rotary Network and accordingly, it has been neutralized. Thus, an affiliation with the Rotary Foundation appears, at the present time, the most viable way in which DRRAG would have any expectation of becoming the operational NGO in Disaster Management that the RI Board intended it to be. The alternative would be for DRRAG to become a “club-based” international service “project” NGO and reach out to the world as ShelterBox does. This would not be a preferred alternative. In any event, the DRRAG Board will necessarily have to review it options for continued existence following the actions taken by the Board following your meeting in January.  

            Let us look at DRRAG in the context of the Strategic Plan of Rotary and the Future Vision Plan of TRF.

 The Strategic Plan relates directly to DRRAG:

·         Increase capacity to serve others

            DRRAG is the only entity within Rotary that has the current capacity and a strategic plan to implement the continuum of service from planning to community development in man-made and natural disasters. It has accessed experts from around the world to take leadership positions so as to assist Clubs to develop plans and unrequited plans to coordinate response, recover, rebuilding and community development

·         Expand membership

            DRRAG has proven that concerned business and professional people will join Rotary because they can participate in an “action group” through their club like Disaster Relief.

·         Emphasize Rotary’s unique vocational service commitment

            Disaster relief calls upon the diverse cross-section of vocational expertise unique to the local Rotary Club culture to populate the many service committees found in the disaster relief portfolio.

·         Optimize development of leadership talent

            The DRRAG allows for meaningful leadership opportunities at every level within the RIN with didactic materials for training and drills applicable to local and regional disaster and community development roles following the recovery period on the disaster continuum.

·         Ensure continuity and consistency of service

            Disaster Relief in its broadest sense demands a complex and high level of professionalism in which it is trite to characterize as continuity and consistency. The application of proper training, preparedness, response, recovery and rebuilding is all undertaken pursuant to recognized international standards that Rotary would be well advised to emulate. DRRAG’s statement of purpose espouses these principals

TRF Future Vision Consistent with DRRAG’s Statement of Purpose:

·         Disease prevention and treatment

            An essential component of the preparedness training and responses by credible disaster relief organizations address disease prevention and treatment. DRRAG includes this priority in its statement of purpose. Working with related RAGs compliments DRRAG’s ability to apply this important component in the response and recovery stages.  

·         Water and sanitation

            Water supply, treatment and sanitation are key component of the SPHERE protocols adopted by DRRAAG. Support for these basic needs together with temporary shelter is included in the DRRAG Statement of Purpose. By supporting other Rotary entities (particularly the box projects – ShelterBox, AquaBox etc.), DRRAG has the ability to be a coordinating agency for TRF in supporting a pooled fund mechanism and operational status to address these priorities. Working with related RAGs compliments DRRAG’s ability to apply this important component in the response and recovery stages. 

·         Maternal and child health

            Priorities in the preparedness, response and community development aspects of disaster relief are the recognition of the human rights issues associated with women and children. Again, consistent with the SPHERE protocols, DRRAG embraces in its purposes, the emphasis to be given to maternal and child health. Working with related RAGs compliments Rotary’s ability to apply this important component in the response and recovery stages. 

·         Basic education and literacy of children

            Community development focuses on education and literacy among other priorities. DRRAG’s statement of purpose includes this fundament human right in its economic and community development emphasis. Working with related RAGs and TRF though Clubs taking advantage of matched grants, DRRAG will provide leadership and coordination n to these efforts. Other RAGs compliment Rotary’s ability to apply this important component in the recovery and redevelopment stages of a disaster. 

            The sixth is not specifically aligned with one RAG but, again, is a cross cutting theme for all:

·         Economic and Community Development

            It with this background and in the context provided above that DRRAG respectfully responds to the Board decision of November. DRRAG has no place in the Rotary world at this particular point in time. It is in the embarrassing situation of not being able to fulfill the purposes the RI Board initially approved because of the Rotary rules that are currently in place. However, the statement of purpose of DRRAG contemplates a close working relationship with Clubs and district in community development. DRRAG, as a “revised RAG” would work cooperatively with TRF to ensure a stable and viable policy platform from which to actualize it’s transformation into a viable Rotary NGO working at every phase of the disaster continuum and incorporating all of the expectations that were approved by the RI Board in 2007.

Memorial to RFI Board: to Create a :Disaster Pooled Fund”

Disaster Relief – Rotarian Action Group  (DRRAG)

Memorial Request to the RI Board: January, 2010. It should be noted that this memorial was prepared before the November meeting of the RI Board. It results from broad consultation among Rotary related emergency management entities. It has not been specifically modified to address the November Board decision related to TRF. 

This is a request to the Board of Directors of Rotary International pursuant to Code of Policy:

43.020.17. Rotarian Action Group Board Policy

A Rotarian Action Group desiring to request the cooperation of Districts, Clubs or Rotarians for any purpose including, but not limited to, the solicitation of financial assistance or participation in commercial ventures shall first secure authorization from the Board. ---

At a recent Board meeting of Disaster Relief – Rotarian Action Group (DRRAG), a motion was passed to request the RI Board to permit DRRAG to develop an emergency pooled fund on behalf of Rotary for use by Clubs and Districts in need at the time of a natural disaster.

Background:

Two Global Strategic Planning conferences were held by DRRAG during 2008-2009. At both, there was clear support for the proposal by REDI (Rotary Emergency Disaster Initiative) to begin the accumulation of funds for distribution at the time of a disaster – when the funds are needed! (see appendix  # 1)

The DRRAG Board approved the following resolution (as extracted from its minutes which are attached hereto as appendix # 2:

21.0                 Approve strategy for DRRAG Polled Emergency Fund

Resolved: Decision Proposal from REDI/DRRAG Disaster Relief Conference - Nassau Bahamas; December 6, 2008

Whereas the conference has heard recommendations concerning the creation of a global Rotary Disaster Relief Fund; and,

Whereas the “Rotary Emergency Disaster Initiative” (REDI) has provided the basis upon which Rotary International can effectively contribute to the development of a disaster funding policy on a global scale; and,

Whereas, it has reviewed the various options available to Rotary in the funding of natural disaster response, recovery and rebuilding; and,

Whereas, the delegates respectfully request DRRAG to act on the recommendations flowing from this conference; and

Whereas REDI looks with favor and has agreed to continue to collaborate with DRRAG in the implementation of this proposal based on the supporting advanced memorandum contained herein;

Be it resolved that:

·         DRRAG be encouraged to work collaboratively with District Governors in response to appeals for funding for local or regional natural disasters,

·         DRRAG play a leadership role in assisting in the financial management of natural and man-made disasters by establishing a long-term pooled funding mechanism accessible by District Governors for local disaster planning, relief and recovery,

·         DRRAG be encouraged to establish a funding mechanism to assist in the coordination of fund-raising initiatives though Rotary recognized policies and procedures

Resolved – That the proposal be accepted (6/20/09)

Subsequent events:

The DRRAG Board has consulted widely subsequent to the Birmingham Board meeting so as to reach a consensus among its leadership on the submission of this memorial. On July 22, 2009, it was agreed to submit the proposal to the RI Board for consideration at its 2009 October/November Board meeting in the hopes that a decision would be made before the next DRRAG Global Conference to be held in Huston Texas, USA on Jan 29 – 31, 2010.  

The thrust of this memorial will be to seek the favor and advice of the RI Board on the following questions:

1. What funding mechanism would work most favorably and in harmony with current RI Policies

2. Where would the fund be “located” (i.e. within TRF? Associate Foundations? Corporate Accounts with shared stewardship with ROI appointed individual)

3. what mechanism would be used to attract funds for the “pool”

4. Is the proposed funding distribution protocol proposed by DRRAG in keeping with the expectations of the RI Board?

5. Will communication be allowed to District Governors for the purpose of explaining this initiative

It would be hoped that some dialog might take place with a staff of executive committee appointee to discuss these questions with DRRAG in advance of the RI Board meeting so the questions might be better refined and structured. DRRAG would welcome such an opportunity.

Rationale for a Pooled Emergency Fund:

Within a week of any disaster that might strike, a District Governor will be inundated with offers of help and assistance from around the Rotary world. DRRAG can help and has helped. It is our duty as Rotarians to promptly and wisely use resources available to us to aid those in such desperate need of them. And be accountable for them.

If the District has undertaken the steps recommended by DRRAG to prepare for a natural or other type of disaster, it should have a number of governance structures in place.

The District should have in place both a Rotary District dedicated disaster relief bank account controlled by a district committee which is overseen by the Governor (a qualified IRS Code Foundation Section 501(c)(3) entity in the United States or similar restricted trust account or foundation) and a District Disaster Relief Committee. District and Club Disaster Coordinators would be key members. These two entities will work in concert to offer both financial and in-kind resources for distribution to Rotary Clubs for their use in meeting the needs of their local communities in collaboration with other local emergency management entities. Job one is to see to the health and safety of Club members and do what is necessary to maintain the operational integrity of the Club. The written materials contained in this document are designed to help you efficiently match the resources available with the needs identified by individual Rotary Clubs throughout the affected areas. 

Request for Rotary funding

DRRAG will use the advanced IGLOO technology to respond to requests from District Governors of Rotary in affected areas to assist them in generating resources to respond to local disasters. DRRAG and IGLOO will institute the necessary stewardship and accountability controls to ensure donor value based on the principals of:

·         Acting only on the advice and at the request of Rotarians in the affected areas

·         Respect and safeguarding of donor intentions

·         Management of and accountability for endowed and current funds

·         Reporting protocols

·         Prudent surge funding policies

·         Oversight of district programs and stewardship policies for each disaster request

DRRAG will be an enabler, supporting on-the-ground relief efforts of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other Rotary related relief agencies in collaboration with Rotary Clubs and District. Shelter Box has made an important contribution to the Rotary presence in disaster immediately following the event. This is a niche within the Disaster planning/relief/recovery continuum. After temporary shelter and water and food have been provided, too often victims are left on their own. DRRAG will assist Rotarians and Clubs to stay involved over a longer term to support health issues, education, governance, infrastructure and rebuilding efforts in the usual way in which Rotarians implement World Community Service projects. DRRAG, through IGLOO will engage other Rotary entities with capacity to serve in particular disaster responses and recovery initiatives.

Purpose of DRRAG as Agent for Districts needing Financial Aid following a Disaster

The purpose is to create an avenue for Rotarians to contribute funds in response to specific disasters. The contributions will go through a DRRAG master account that will augment Rotary International’s process for disaster relief. A specific account for a disaster will be opened at the discretion of the Chief Executive Officer of DRRAG, in consultation with the DRRAG Executive Committee and the chairman of The Rotary Foundation Trustees.

DRRAG Requirements and Process

DRRAG will collect contributions though the E-Commerce portal on its IGLOO web site on a temporary, restricted basis for disasters, and these contributions will support the Rotary Club and District disaster recovery efforts. Contributions to the sub-accounts for disasters will be accepted for a maximum of six months. In creating the accounts, the following will be taken into consideration:

1. Public interest and the expressed interest of Rotarians to provide relief in response of the disaster.

2. The economic and human impact of the disaster.

Clubs and District Committees

Once the Chief Executive Officer of DRRAG opens a specific account for a disaster, a District committee under the supervision of the Governor will be recognized. Disaster recovery committees will be comprised of Rotary leaders (DRRAG Zone, District and Club Coordinators) in the affected areas.

The disaster recovery committees will:

1. be responsible for the management and stewardship of funds, including the maintenance of a separate bank account for these funds;

2. identify the needs of the affected communities along with appropriate projects to be supported and funded; and

3. Utilize the funds exclusively for charitable, educational and humanitarian response, recovery and rebuilding projects and in a manner consistent with the plan agreement submitted by the Governor.

4. Payments from the disaster recovery accounts may be made in installments if the total contributions exceed US$25,000. DRRAG shall account for the administrative charges associated with the handling of the funds raised as agent for the District. The funds shall be considered trust funds held for the beneficiary district. An appropriate spending plan will be requested before funds are released.

5. Each Disaster Fund will be identified by number, location, disaster name or project (If any)

Stewardship of Funds

Complete reports must be submitted to DRRAG every twelve months for the life of the grant with a final report due within two months of completion of the project

In this endeavor, keep foremost in your mind, Service Above Self.

Your primary Rotary International resource will be:  WWW. DRRAG.org

The Value of the Rotarian Action Group Program to RI:

                        The initial vision:

International Service is the Fourth Avenue of Service of Rotary International.  Over the years Rotary Clubs and Districts have implemented thousands of successful projects; so, how will this new layer of program/service delivery benefit Rotary?  International development underwent a global evaluation during the 1990s that has resulted in there being significant changes to how international aid is being delivered; and how its effectiveness and efficiency be realized. In 2005, the RI Board created a new service delivery vehicle for Rotarians.

On Rotary’s Priorities:

Of equal urgency for many Rotarians is the need for civil society to recognize the compelling action called for in support of the UN Millennium Goals and the Priorities of the FVP and the SP of Rotary and its Foundation.

There is a set of general principles that represent the keys to effective International development.

 It is hoped that these principles are assisting Rotarian Action Groups in the planning and implementation of effective international service projects or programs (World Community Service) that are sustainable and contribute to the reduction of poverty in the developing community and/or country to which Rotary efforts are directed.

It was found that for development to be effective certain general principles should be applied to any sustainable project or program. Each has application to the evolution of operational strategies being developed by Rotarian Action Groups. 

The general principles are:

• Local Ownership;

• Gender Equality;

• Improved donor coordination;

• Stronger partnerships;

• Results based approach; and,

• Building Capacity.

Unlike a Club or Resource Group, a RAG has the advantage over many engaged in development assistance to take on this leadership role. It has a worldwide network of potential partners in our Clubs and Districts and a wide range of resources to tap into. Like any large corporation with inter-connected branch plants, the Rotary model lends itself ideally to this application. The crux is how will a RAG utilize this through its local partners in a strategic, holistic way to reach out to the thousands of communities in need – without prejudice to the core programs of Rotary and its Foundation? 

How will a RAG enhance the capacity of its partners who in turn will strengthen the capacities of those engaged or will benefit from the development efforts?  I believe that with the many brilliant minds now populating our Rotarian Action Groups – it can be done.

Rotarians, as significant contributors to development work around the world, need to understand these principles and integrate them into their international service projects and programs. Large international NGO’s and Governments understand that a programmatic approach to “aid” is preferable to the one-off projects that Rotary has traditionally undertaken. Support through this mechanism means that beneficiary Clubs can perform Community Service in a more effective way.

 RAGs have the potential, indeed, the responsibility to function in an international context.  As other development organizations are able to provide the results of their international assistance projects and programs, Rotary has becomes increasingly reliant upon non-Rotary organizations to provide the results of a project.  For example, the Polio Plus program relies on the reporting of the World Health Organization to inform Rotary of the effectiveness of this program, UNICEF and local governmental health agencies to mobile and organize the immunization clinics.

It is my belief that by integrating the recognized principles of international development into World Community Service (WCS), Rotary’s International Service will become more effective and sustainable.  Other like-minded organizations and individuals will also actively seek to become partners in Rotary initiatives. Non-Rotarian leaders will be attracted to Rotary membership. 

Rotary International, and vicariously, Clubs and Districts, have received tremendous prestige and kudos globally for its Polio Plus program.  Individual Clubs and Districts also get the recognition they deserve from their communities for implementing effective development projects and programs.  Integrating these principles into every club project and program will, within the strategic framework of a RAG, provide the results that can be shared in its own community and with other partner organizations.

Rotary has spent 100 years cultivating an internationally recognized reputation for quality humanitarian projects and valuable intellectual property. A Rotarian Action Group now uses the Rotary Marks. While undertaking a major sectoral medical action plan, for example, the Rotary leaders need to be mindful that their RAG carries the reputation of all Rotarians with it.

It necessarily follows that each recognized RAG has an enormous responsibility to bring the considerable business and professional expertise that Rotarians apply in their “other lives” to build the necessary credibility for their action group. This will take careful planning hopefully under a corporate umbrella (which is encouraged by the RI Board) to ensure consistency in management, planning, implementation, accountability, evaluation and reporting of the specific long-term sustainable program activity for which the group is formed. The success of this undertaking will place Rotary in the enviable position of being a truly great non-governmental organization!

Only in this way will the RAGs acquire the reputation and credibility that accompany the best known of the international NGO’s which these groups have the potential of emulating. This development will also need the encouragement and support of Rotary to ensure that the potential is realized.

            The realization of this noble objective will only be realized through the strong and commited support of the leadership at the top of the Rotary senior leader cadre. If Rotary is destined to become a (the) leading operational NGO in the world, it will not happen without your support of this vision.

            Is this Goal Achievable?

Think of Polio Plus as a Rotarian Action Group 25 years ago. Could we have visualized the results? This is the challenge for a RAG today. For the RI Board, the program has been a leap of faith. The application process and existing RAGs must give the Board the confidence it needs to actualize and support the achievements proclaimed possible in the “statement of purpose” associated with each individual Rotarian Action Group.

Resource Groups and RAGs

Combined with Rotary’s unique global network, it is hoped that the effective development principles referred to will assist RAGs to maintain Rotary as leader in the community because Rotarians are inclined to bring their business and professional expertise to the service table to Lead the Way.

            In an early 2006 communication with PRIP Bill Boyd, he raised a question regarding the role of RAGs vis-a-vis Resource Groups. It was answered at this early stage of the implementation of the Rotarian Action Groups program in this way:

“One of the early 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 are 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 RI 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, Resource Groups 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.

Also, the board did not deal with the issue of ambiguities in the RAG Code of Policies section that have given rise to misunderstanding and questionable decisions by the Board based on a misinterpretation of the original intent built into the Code. Since we do not have in Rotary a process that requires, what Administrative Tribunals call, Administrative Fairness, those groups thought to be transgressing the Code have not have an opportunity to respond to Board criticism prior to adverse decisions being taken.

Observations of the Current Program:

            The observations below are my own. They arise from a long interest in the evolution of the Rotarian Action Group program and in my capacity as current Chair of the Disaster Relief – RAG. I hope you will find them constructive and biased in favour of the best interests of Rotary as distinct from any personal or leadership role I play in DRRAG – a role that will end in June 2010 as a result of my completing a three year term in this position.

            Firstly, unlike many others, I find the action of the Board in B-14 to be generally a very positive and constructive advance of the RAGs program. Any alignment of TRF and RI strategic planning and the core values of Rotary with the focus on a more refined list of priorities will inevitable best utilize the capacity of Rotary and put our best face forward in a public image sense.

            The Future of Rotary is in the Hands of the Clubs!

            The Rotary club is the central focus of our organization. You have quite rightly reminded the Rotary world that strengthening the club will strengthen Rotary International. We must continually ask of any “top down” initiative:  “will this help Clubs to serve more effectively?” At the same time, it must be candidly observed that many Clubs (especially in parts of our world where the needs of the people are greatest) simply do not have the numbers, the resources or the capacity to serve as effectively as we would wish.

            On the other hand, a coordinated effort of individually focused Rotarians from many Clubs, acting in concert can do much more. The answer in Rotary’s past has been to create service or cause related committees and task forces. Regrettably, these were always short lived with a transfusion of leadership on an annual basis.

            The relatively new program – Rotarian Action Groups would seem to bring the best of these alternatives in playing an enhancing role in helping Rotary and its Foundation to remain relevant and continuing to grow by helping Clubs do what they do best – serve others! 

RAGs as delivery agent partners for WCS:

Rotarian Action Groups (RAGs) are becoming effective delivery agents for World Community Service. These entities, recognized by Rotary International, are beginning to develop capacity to implement major humanitarian programs in congruent, multi-country initiatives and each has the potential of becoming another “Polio Plus”. Many were generating “critical mass” until the non-communication rule change in the Code of Policies came about in June, 2009. That has impacted dramatically on all RAGs.

All Rotarians recognize that RI will not launch a singular “Corporate” program like Polio (if at all) until our goal dedicated to that special program has been achieved. At the same time, “Polio” is the “elephant in the strategic closet of Rotary”. There is this view that Rotary has become the “single-purpose” organization that it was never intended to be (since the 1921 convention in Edinburgh). This has had obvious benefits in raising Rotary’s international profile and it surely destined to be Rotary’s crowning achievement. We all support it. By being a Paul Harris Society member as well as supporting the Polio Challenge, I respect and will continue to grow my giving to this cause.

            Resource Group coordinators are the traditional channel whereby the President communicates his/her emphases to Districts and Clubs. These coordinators, well qualified and knowledgeable of Rotary policies and procedures, do not necessarily reflect a deep understanding of the subject matter, nor knowledge or skill in the function, nor have close relationships with outside experts in the subject. Most RAGs do not have corresponding Resource Groups.

            The leadership of a RAG represents the skills, knowledge and understanding of the subject matter, and has established many links to non-Rotary organizations and expertise. These qualities could complement a corresponding Resource Group and jointly provide and strengthen opportunities for service. Accordingly, a discussion on how to enhance the RAGs program might discuss possible courses of action including:

·         The President of Rotary International should be encouraged to discuss potential appointments to Resource Groups with the leadership of the corresponding RAG(s) and to select appointees to Resource Groups from among RAG membership where appropriate

·         The Secretariat  be encouraged to recognize the complementary nature of Resource Groups and RAGs and seek counsel, support and advice from both organizations equally as appropriate

·         The leadership of RAGs should naturally reach out to Resource Group coordinators, to provide information and support as requested, to discuss common issues and, to the extent possible, provide a seamless face to Rotary Clubs and Districts.

·         The Secretariat  look increasingly to the leadership of RAGs, as appropriate,  for spokespersons and representatives on the relevant subject

·         The Secretariat  consult with the appropriate RAG whenever making staffing or resource decisions relative to a particular presidential emphasis or Rotary program or TRF program 

·         Where appropriate, in the short term, amalgamate existing RAGs/Resource Groups (i.e. water) with a view to supporting the “action” side of the combined initiative

Implications for Membership

We all realize that the last 25 years have been “tough on Rotary”. It is almost unbelievable. Even since I was a Governor, 15 years ago, we have continued to loose as many as 100,000 Rotarians per year! The membership total is virtually the same today! We have actually gained about one million new Rotarians but lost just as many! There are many reasons for this but Polio, as much as we do not want to talk about it, is a major one. Every Rotarian cannot go on an NID. But men and women join Rotary because they want to participate in meaningful service activity. Many Rotarians feel detached and resentful because they are not encouraged or given opportunities to roll up their sleeves and “do something”. In one important way, they are actually prohibited by Rotary International’s rules to communicate with other Rotarians who want to join with them in a different service activity. This really is bizarre! A small percentage of the Rotary world actually feels engaged with the Polio program but will continue to support it notwithstanding. But that does not and should not preclude them from other service opportunities on the global stage.    

Every RAG represents a specific sectoral program area in WCS. Each priority identified and recognized by the RI Board of Directors is consistent with a program found in either the now historic “Menu of Service Opportunities” or “Structured Programs” of RI.

Every properly constituted RAG has the potential of becoming another Polio Plus. But, John, I submit to you that this should never weaken our resolve to conquer Polio. In other words, by giving the RAGs the opportunity to grow and expanding opportunities for service for more Rotarians, we simply expand the size of the polio pie – not devour it as many staff and senior Rotarians believe! The unexpected benefits would be that we keep more Rotarians engaged in their special and impassioned programs, grow membership by retaining these otherwise disenchanted Rotarians and grow the public image of Rotary. 

Each RAG carries with it an enormous responsibility of accurately projecting the ethic, the history and the excellence expected by the RI Board as each manifests the Object of Rotary. RAGs will grow Rotary, its reputation in the world and its capacity to expand its service opportunities through new members who are commited to specific causes supported by the RAGs program.  

Creating awareness of Rotarian Action Groups throughout Rotary

            Rotary Clubs are encouraged by the President of Rotary International to undertake humanitarian service projects. Many RAGs have access to information, resources and expertise which would be of benefit to Clubs implementing certain projects.  Consequently it is in the interest of RI that all directors, governors, club presidents and Rotarians are informed of the purpose and role of RAGs.

            Consistent with the Board’s recent decision to request DG’s to appoint a person responsible for enhancing the communication to Clubs in respect of the “Fellowships” program, I would respectfully recommend that:

            The Board consider expanding this requirement by having DGs appoint a similar liaison person in each District for the RAGs programs

            There are other important recommendations of the RAGs Committee that has not be discussed at the RI Board level. These include:

            The Secretariat  of Rotary International be requested:

• to list RAGs in the Official Directory together with a brief description of each RAG, its mission and goals, and the contact details of the senior executives/officers

• to publicize the activities of RAGs from time to time in The Rotarian and in the corresponding magazines in the other official languages of RI

• to make accessible on the Rotary International website www.rotary.org  information on RAGs and to provide user-friendly links to the websites of RAGs

• to ensure appropriate links between Resource Groups and/or service activities (i.e. World Community Service RI web site) with the implementing Action group

RAGs build Rotary’s Capacity to Serve:

            We expect a high level of professionalism in program and project management. Unlike Resource Groups that are not “tasked” to implement the Object of Rotary, RAGs are proving to be effective deliverers of community service. Their members come from diverse vocational backgrounds. Unlike Clubs and Resource Groups, they are capable of forging strategic alliances with NGOs. The pursuit of excellence fosters an enhanced image of Rotary and thus attracts and retains the interest of members and attracts outside funding. They have the ability to ensure that Rotary is indeed seen as an organization comprising Business and Professional Leaders rather than an often heard perception that Rotary is a group of sincere and well-meaning amateurs.

            A major drawback of the Resource Group structure is the lack of direct contact with program implementers and the sustainability that is expected in any WCS projects. Many Rotary Clubs do not understand the principals of sound international development and are not connected (for obvious reasons) to governments and large international NGO’s that would provide them this access to best practices. The annual change of Rotary leaders at all levels which leads to short-term, project thinking is avoided by the RAGs program. Each enjoys a singleness of purpose and multi-year continuity of officers thereby facilitating long-term programmatic approaches to community issues that are essential for long-term sustainability.

            Capacity building begins by the President-elect encouraging the International Assembly Committee to include a plenary session and subsequent discussion group dedicated to the opportunities for service in collaboration with RAGs and those representatives of RAGs be considered for invitation to provide input to the training programs including PETS and/or District Assemblies and Conferences.

            In addition, the President encourage the board of directors to create a mandatory Institute agenda item to include RAGs in the agenda for zone institutes. It would be at this stage that a  request to District Governors-Elect that a “Global Networking Group” person be appointed in each District for the purpose of informing and promoting both Fellowship Groups and Rotarian Action Groups throughout the District and at the club level.

RAGs Enhance the Public Image of Rotary:

            RAGs enhance the public image of Rotary. RAGs make good use of the vocational classification principle of Rotary and have the ability to apply individual skills to humanitarian causes.  These business and professional leaders do not have time or the inclination to spend “unbilled time” in fellowship groups. They want to manifest the Rotary mantra by “doing good in the world” in a more efficient and effective way. Sadly, even Clubs working with the Rotary Foundation see the complex rules and delays in funding and service centre responses as terribly frustration to the point of wanting (and many do) by-pass the cumbersome Foundation humanitarian grants programs. They are more enthusiastic about working with others as a team.  The RAGs are engaging the diverse vocational skill sets that exist in Rotary Clubs in a more global way than any Club or District can do. A RAG provides the means in many Clubs to allow this to happen. By associating themselves with a viable Rotary structured program, both Clubs and members contribute in a congruent way to the public image of Rotary.

RAGs Make Better use of the Rotary International Network (RIN) than any program other than Polio Plus

            RAGs create links and assist Rotary Clubs to implement successful, sustainable projects/programs in developing countries. This often depends on being able to identify and call on resources from international partners outside of the current resources of RI and its staff. The extensive technical and information exchanges between and among related Rotarian Action Groups facilitates coordination and best practices.  Rotary staff in the Secretariat  service centers cannot, through no fault of their own, do this! In time, it is believed that a dedicated staff in each RAG will collectively contribute to this objective. A mature RAG program will also provide for a more effective reporting system on the results of the combined efforts in many projects so as to congruently report results to the outside world as do the very large and successful international NGOs.

            Regrettably, at this time, the links are seriously rusted because of Rotary’s own policy on inter-Rotarian communication.

            RAGs can not rely on “program advice” and guidelines from the RI Board. Expert resources in the service sector of RAGs do not exist within the Rotary Secretariat at this time. RAGs are “bottom-up” organizations. They are motivated by the passion and expertise of the individual members. These Rotarians provide there own technical, professional and governance competence under the framework of the RI Board Code of Policies which ironically limit their potential dramatically. They are governed by the bylaws and jurisdictional framework of the country (State) in which they are incorporated provided this is not inconsistent with the RI rules. In the long term, the democratization of Rotary in this sense will begin to retrieve some of the lost confidence in corporate Rotary that: “Rotary is in the hands of Rotary Clubs and their members”. RI Guidelines should compliment this process, not detract from it. Otherwise, we make a mockery of our Presidential Themes!

Governance of Rotarian Action Groups and accountability to Board of RI

            RAGs are taking an increasingly important role in supporting and encouraging Clubs to implement Rotary programs and are increasingly becoming the vehicle for attracting and channeling funds from outside agencies to club projects and programs.

          It is the experience of successful RAGs that a structure that includes a Zone (or Country) coordinators, District Coordinators and related Club Committees are the most effective way in which the programs of the RAGs can be implemented

            Furthermore it is understood that the senior leadership of Rotary International has expressed concerns about the lack of accountability of RAGs to the Board of Directors of RI. This could be addressed by:

• Each RAG amend its by-laws to allow for the appointment of a representative of the President to the Board of Directors of the RAG, so as to provide for the discretion of the President to be exercised if so desired.

• The President of RI be encouraged at his discretion to appoint a liaison from the RAGs Committee to the Board of Directors.

• That RAGs be encouraged to generate an organizational structure governed in a way that includes coordination at the Zone, District and at the discretion of the Clubs, at the Club levels in a manner consistent with Rotary policies and recommendations.

• Empower a more effective RAGs Committee by re-defining its mandate and providing for meetings and a closer communication relationship with the RI Board

Funding Issues:

            A successfully implemented RAGs program will make Rotary International the winner. There is already, after only 4 short years, clear evidence that justifies extensive staff and financial support for RAGs from Rotary International. As we all know, Rotarians seek support for The Rotary Foundation. However, some donors will not give to TRF because of a lack of understanding of the core programs or a lack of interest in the specific programs supported by the Foundation. But these same organizations, institutions and individuals will fund a RAG program because its sector specific goal complements that of the donor. This is seen time and again with other “cause-related” international NGOs. Ideally, the RAG receives core funding to support club projects, which might have gone to other organizations.

            It has been demonstrated that RAGs do not redirect funds from the important core programs of Rotary or it’s Foundation. Indeed, the annual programs fund stability has been seen to be resilient to senior leadership encouraging successive Polio Plus fund raising campaigns. Money coming from Clubs and Rotarians for Disaster Relief, for example, could not be said to have deprived TRF of fund raising objectives even though the amounts are staggering (estimated to be in excess of $ US 165 Million since the 2004/2005 Tsunami) and without any RI corporate fund raising encouragement.

            In other words, with the actual involvement of RI in some of these RAG related initiatives, the overall pie expands incrementally.

            RAGs are gaining recognition for Rotary on the international stage. They are invited to participate with internationally recognized NGOs such as SPHERE, UNICEF, WHO, US-AID, CIDA. They are recognized by institutions, private foundations, trusts and governments that seek a focused program to channel funds to worthy service initiatives at the community level. They attract multinational corporations as partners. Both human and financial resources naturally follow. At the same time, there is a reciprocal advantage of Rotary Clubs gaining access to the expertise and resources of these institutions and organizations in their programs, guided by Rotary in the name of the RAGs

            A singularly focused RAG gives Rotary the capacity in a number of fields. This is illustrated by the connection with the WHO in the Polio Plus program. This capacity is attractive to other organizations seeking strategic alliances to enhance their effectiveness.  It strengthens Rotary’s ability to serve its communities through its Clubs and the determined Rotarians in those Clubs that make things happen. It allows Rotary to “think BIG” as Bill Gates Sr. encouraged the organization to do. Indeed, we are in a changing world and Rotary needs to keep pace. We can expand our horizons of service by doing more through strategic alliances.

Rotarian Action Groups is where ordinary Rotarians want to be:

            Each RAG is unique. Some deliver service directly. This was not necessarily contemplated at the outset of the program. Some provide information and best practices. Some are proactive. Some are necessarily responsive (i.e. DRRAG).  Whether large or small, RAGs have to be self-funded. They create a reason to grow membership as the Code of Polices demands and collaborate with other organizations sharing common goals. The intention has always been to ensure that RAGs provide resources for Rotary Clubs and Districts in support of their common theme projects.

            Some RAGs are fortunate to currently have a related Resource Group. Most do not. Some RAGs are more information oriented as compared to being engaged in project/program hands-on service. Some are implementation focused – most do not have this capacity.  Some are able to readily collaborate with Clubs – others are more oriented in “advice” and providing “best practices”. Most are directly focused on a Rotary strategic focus – most are not except in a general way. Some cross over all lines, like Disaster Relief. In the Disaster continuum is found training, health and water issues in relief and recovery, poverty reduction, community development, hunger and malnutrition in recovery and economic/community development.    

            Of interest, is the fact that because of current Rotary policies, some RAGs function well “below the radar” screen for reasons of self preservation, yet Rotary Clubs are crying out for human, materiel, financial and informational resources not available within the existing structure of RI. These expertise are not generally available (or overstretched) within the existing structure of Rotary’s training and development offices or program resources. Nor, does the training cycle of DG’s and Club Presidents adequately focus on these priorities. RAGs fill this need. They can provide the support essential to success but only if decision-makers at all levels fully recognize the capabilities of RAGs and are willing to encourage that support.

The application process and existing RAGs must give the Board the confidence it needs to actualize and support the achievements proclaimed possible in the “statement of purpose” associated with each individual Rotarian Action Group.

Rotary’s Strategic Plan and TRF Future Vision Plan

            I fully support the view that the sectoral alignment of RAGs should be within the context of both RI’s Strategic Goals and the TRF Future Vision Plan. I do have difficulty with the implicit assumption that it is only in the area of the existing Resource Group alignment that Rotary can best enhance its opportunities for service. It is arguable that RAGs should become Resource Groups with the expanded mandate that encompass their individual statements of purpose.

Five of the seven priorities of current The Strategic Plan relate directly to RAGs:

            Increase capacity to serve others

            Expand membership

Emphasize Rotary’s unique vocational service commitment

Optimize development of leadership talents

Ensure continuity and consistency of service

And, of the six areas of focus, four are within the mandates of existing RAGs:

            Disease prevention and treatment

            Water and sanitation

            Maternal and child health

Basic education and literacy of children

Peace, in the context of the Object of Rotary and Conflict Resolution is a natural consequence of Rotary “doing good in the world” and a cross-cutting theme for all Rotary programs

The sixth is not specifically aligned with one RAG but, again, is a cross cutting theme for all:

Economic and Community Development

The sixth area of focus, economic and community development embraces many of the existing RAGs. In fact, in the absence of disease prevention, safe water and sanitation, maternal and child health and literacy, there will be no sustainable community development.

The Board reviewed the RI Strategic Plan in November, 2009 and it is now focused on the following three priorities:

·         Support and Strengthen clubs

·         Increase our Humanitarian impact with focused service opportunities

·          Enhance our public image and awareness

            If Rotary is to support, strengthen and increase its capacity to make a greater impact on humanitarian service, it can focus and professionalize itself by working to strengthen the very entities that have the potential to do just that. Corporate Rotary is too remote and detached from the Clubs to make this happen. Fully supported Rotarian Action Groups are Rotary’s best hope to achieve these far sighted and visionary strategies.

Rotarians Respond to the November Board decision:

            DRRAG members have responded to the November Board Decision in various ways. Here are some comments that have come from all over the Rotary world.  

            The following sample comments have been received from Rotarians on RAGs generally and specifically commenting on the decision of the Board of Directors decision 14-a. In sum, they provide a glimpse into the candor of Rotarians on Rotary governance generally and observations not often heard by senior leaders.

·         There is scant detail as to the policy reasons for this decision. It would be hoped that the meeting contemplated will allow for a full and frank discussion about the current polices and how they can be modified in the best interests of RI though the growth and support of the RAG program

·         Until now, it has appeared that RAGs were working against the traditions and culture of Rotary. There is some truth in this. One attracts more flies with honey than excrement!

·         Drrag  agrees with the strategy of “pilot RAGS”

·         There is more than one RAG that link with the six areas of focus. Perhaps there should be consideration of a consolidation of these entities.

·         They are a resource now but the Board will not allow them to function in that capacity with one way communication.  By focusing within the six areas in the FVP they restrict the purpose which is driven by the interest of the members within that RAG.

·         Making the transition from an RI based “program” to a Foundation alignment will have the beneficial impact of a closer alignment with the humanitarian programs of TRF and thus appropriately “connect” the RAGs with those Clubs that are accessing TRF funding. Since RAGs should be organized to support the Clubs with their projects, this makes eminently good sense! Although the decision is short on details, the idea of funding through this mechanism will support this relationship.

·         RI wishes to control the activities of the RAG which defeats the purpose of a RAG. 

·         Some might think that RI is “taking over the RAGS”. This is a negotiable point. What is intended, I believe, is that Rags will become more prominent and replace the Resource Groups while stile maintaining their own mantra. If this is the case, it would be good for Rotary

·         Rotary would then have to fund the administration including costs associated with those appointed by the Board

·         The RAG will need to modify it's by-laws to fit the proposed officer and board appointments and make the changes with the Companies Branch, State of Illinois

·         Self governance would be subject to the majority controlled Board

·         Members may have no voice in the selection of the officers and directors who determine the policies of the RAG. This could lead to revisiting Presidential appointments which are often “political” in nature and do not result in the best person suited for the job. These appointments need to be considered by an objective and knowledgeable observer of the particular service sector

·         The liability risks for program activities would have to be explored in the context of RI's insurance policies. Coverage may have to be expanded to cover Clubs and Districts undertaking programs under the RAG corporate umbrella

·         RAG programs may be limited to those permitted within the policies and guidelines of TRF.  This may be a limiting factor (i.e. cannot build buildings? Pay salaries?). This should be avoided so as to allow best practices (not funding issues) drive the service activity.

·         Funding of RAG activity would have to be segregated between individual projects (which is often the case) and funding put in a Donor Advised Fund (DAF) which requires the RAG to establish a 501c3 to receive and distribute funds outside the USA. TRF DAFs can only transfer funds to another USA based 501c3.  This point is not well understood by the RI Board members. This suggestion seems to be written from an entirely USA perspective. Similar arrangements would have to be made with Associate Foundations and Country specific tax regimes where funds are being raised. Problematic, expensive and complicated!

·         Under this scenario, RI would take control of the RAG. A negotiated position would have to be determined on how the RAG would contact Rotarians, Clubs, or Districts for the purpose of providing service opportunities. The policy suggests that the RAG could even be restricted from communicating with its members. If RI recognizes the value of the RAG, it must also give the RAG the powers to empower Clubs and individual Rotarians. This will require a revision of the communications policies

·         A name change would eliminate, on the short term, the values of the  good will built up by the existing RAG

·         Questions such as: who establishes standards and "best practice" guidelines would suggest the need for independence of the RAG so as to ensure no interference of recognized experts by RI or TRF staff that do not have these expertise at this time.

·         There seems to be a condition precedent and assumes that TRF has a monopoly on good ideas and programs that Rotarians want to participate in! This does not recognize the reality of how Rotary Club projects are conceived and evolve. Rotary projects (programs) should percolate up – not down! If the club projects should happen to be aligned with the “statement of purpose” of a particular RAGs then the two can join hands.

·         It will be important for RI to find a mechanism to educate and inform the Clubs as the service opportunities available through the individual RAGs in which the Clubs and Districts can participate. Typically, these would be broadly based international programs (like polio plus) and the Clubs in the RIN would play a revitalized role in participating in international service under a cohesive service umbrella – doing their individual projects but planning, implementing and reporting in a congruent manner in the context of recognized principles of international development. This requires strong leadership at the top of each RAG and the ability to freely communicate with Rotary Clubs.

·         Because of the communications (circularization) polices of Rotary, this section (as it now reads,) will not work.

·         Two kinds of Rags: Project RAGs (i.e. water projects) and Program RAGs (comparable to Polio Plus). One must rely on Clubs to implement, the other is top down in leadership, expertise, coordination and mobilization – an “opt-in” relationship instead of one that waits for a club project to come along that it can support. Then ask the question: How can it support if it has no means or communication capacity?

·         RAGs are leaders – they are not followers! Clubs did not lead Polio Plus – they fit into the long term strategies and plans that impact in a far more sustainable way than any project that Clubs and Districts can do. Operational NGO status is what RAGs are all about!

·         On the circularization policy: This is the point that needs to change.

·         This is really ridicules. How can a RAG obtain any capacity to do anything if it can not reach out to Clubs and Districts – let alone Rotarians who need to be informed about what the RAG is and what is does so that a decision can be made on joining the RAG o not?

·         Alternate options would include an educational mechanism in the usual Rotary way:  starting with DGE’s at the I.A, with informational materials flowing through PETS, District Assemblies and Club Communication

·         I read the other emails It looks like we should just turn our membership list over to RI and tell them to do all the admin and recruiting.   Where is all the rebuilding money going to come from; and who’s going to take care of service if Rotary is only focusing on restoration.   I guess RI is going to let Red Cross, Army, etc take care of disaster relief.   It looks like someone else (DRRAG) will still be needed to coordinate club and district leaders.  Looks like a lot of duplication.

·         Good luck with the admin folks. Impossible!

·         A reversion to the former rules which allowed communication through District Governors would be a good start to begin to recoup the confidence of Sr. Rotary leaders that Rotary Clubs could make up their own minds about what service activity they want to be involved in – This is the Rotary way!

·         There is seen to be some inconsistency in language giving rise to ambiguity in the Code of Policies regarding the issue of membership development:

43.020.4 Termination of Recognition

6) para 2-------“it is expected that each group will, over the medium term (three to five years), strive to achieve the following expectations:

·         Expand its individual membership base

·         Demonstrate the involvement of Clubs and Districts in the program of the action group

43.020.14. Rotarian Action Group Service Activities

Rotarian Action Groups are encouraged to work through the existing structure of Rotary Clubs and Districts to promote and support their service projects.

The original (pre-June 2009) wording of section43.020.17 Rotarian Action Group Circularization Policy, read:

“A Rotarian Action group desiring to request the cooperation of Districts, Clubs or Rotarians outside of its own membership in connection with any matter whatsoever, by any means, including telemarketing, shall first submit its purpose and plans to the governor or governors of the involved area and secure his, her or their approval.”

·         The board had an opportunity to resolve the confusion arising from the ambiguity and inconsistency of interpretation on the issues of “circularization and membership development. It did not do so. Instead if created a general prohibition of communication that has paralyzed the RAGs. Here is an excerpt from the Annual report from DRRAG:

“Attending the International Convention is completely counter-productive and requires the expenditure of Rotarian funds for purposes other than Disaster relief. The return by way of membership subscriptions is disappointing. With less than 1% of the Rotarians of the world in attendance and a preponderance of them not interested in Global Networking opportunities, the cost/benefit is clearly negative.

Since the implementation of the RI Board policy regarding Rotarian Action Group prohibition to contact DG's for the purpose of communicating with district Clubs, there has been a dramatic turnaround in membership subscriptions to the RAG. For the 4 month period preceding the June 2009 Board decision, DRRAG attracted, with the assistance of DGs, 345 new members in a 3 month period. The convention generated 19 members over 5 days in the House of Friendship.

Since the convention, in the past 6 months and the "GAG" order placed on all RAGs the total number of new members has been a grand total of four (4). This has effectively cut off the only source of revenue available to the RAG.

This policy has also limited DRRAG from communicating with affected Districts and its ability to work with Clubs and Districts as called for in the Code. The Code calls for RAGs to increase their members and expand their presence in ever increasing numbers of Districts. The new board policy makes this an impossible direction to carry out. Clearly, with no source of administration funding or the membership source of Revenue, the Rotarian Action group is not sustainable. There is no other viable way of generating new memberships, the funds from which allow for the production of hard copy newsletters and for general administration. Unless the ability to communicate with Rotarians is reinstated, there will be no future for DRRAG, or, we expect, many other RAGs that do not look to 3/p funding for sustainability.” 

·         The clear advantage of Rotary is to implement its programs through the Rotary International Network (RIN) of Clubs and Districts. This is its true strength and bargaining power with Governments, NGOs and Institutions that are potential strategic alliance partners in many areas of service. By eliminating the means of communication among its “branch plants”, the whole “idea” of Rotary is lost. It is trite to say that the “indirect” method of expecting all Governors and Presidents to be the conduits of all Rotary information is unrealistic. At the same time, the “delete” key on any Rotarian’s email system is available to all. The communication phenomenon is upon us all. Rotary is completely out of synch with the rst of the world by discouraging and infact, preventing communication among its members. Any business or professional person would agree that this is absurd.       

·         A DAF  is of value primarily to USA residents and ignores the rest of the world

·         What fees and administration charges would be associated with this arrangement? It must not be a “money grab” by TRF

·         Why not a “restricted fund” with the option of having a DAF is circumstances call for this tax related mechanism.

·          the kind of services (global, complex, multi-sector) that most of us think the RAGs can/will do are important and can not be done at the level of expectation that Rotarians (or the world at large) will want through the current RI structure [that include financial (including TRF) and managerial.). 

·         I understand that the changes that must be made at the RI level take significant time (3-5 years minimum) even if everyone was on board. 

·          The paradigm shift that is required at the RI level to have the enhanced service capabilities that the RAGs movement envisions will leave a number of people behind. 

·         I don't think the RAG supporters fully understand their integration role into an RI unified family.  In particular, there can only be a few major, global RAGs.  Who they are, how they work, etc is still undefined.  Right now people are staking out their interest fiefdom and planting the flag.  Pulling the fiefdoms into an integrated whole is still not on the radar screen. 

·         I don't think things can be pushed too hard/fast.  Here is a situation where letting the soup simmer every once in a while, for a while, is going to be necessary if we want a good product in the future. 

·         On DRRAG specifically, I see it different that all other RAGs at this point.  It is multi-sector, it is an international management/financial structure for the use of others (not just our RAG management) and it requires a level of program tailoring for every implementation/undertaking that is high than encountered in single sector endeavors.

·         Because of RI Policies many have simply lost interest in the RAG movement, or just don't care, when in reality I believe that the issue or problem needs to "boil" for a while before we impose a solution.  Of course this approach is laden with value judgments that others may take issue with.  Just so you know we (RI) need DRRAG or something like what we envision.  But the birth of this elephant will not come easy.

·         Like you, I have circulated the information to the DRRAG Board and received many answers. The consensus from DRRAG is that it should become a pilot RAG, if asked. The reason for this is the historic relationship between Rotarians and Disasters. It is an Action Group that has great potential but needs access to the Rotary International Network. Under the conditions in play today, this is impossible. DRRAG could become a Billion Dollar undertaking if it was allowed to function within the Network accessing all of its resources including communication capacity. The culture of Rotary at this time does not allow for that. The senior leadership of Rotary is determined to focus on a narrowing field of service priorities. This is an understandable rationale in this. In part it has to do with the 25 year crusade of Rotary to irradicate polio. This corporate obsession will continue to dominate the leadership thinking until it begins to realize that an “exit strategy” can actually be discussed in the form of facilitating the natural impulses of Rotarians to explore other major global service priorities.

·         The      “elephant” in the Board room of Rotary – Polio irradication – needs to continue to be Rotay’s Number one area of focus. No one who espouses change in Rotary would agree that change should be at the expense of turning our back on this priority. We will continue to fund it. We will continue to mobilize and advocate.

·         Arguably, other service activities do not preclude the necessity of talking about and allowing, from the top, down, the freedom to take Rotary into the hands of Clubs and individual Rotarians and support meaningful service initiatives that might eventually replace the need for another singular corporate service project.

·         We (Rotary) needsa New Model thinking and New Models of service

·         Task Forces  - re-invented?

·         Collaborate and de-centralize controls over service implementation.

·         We have also had much feedback from Rotarians around the world on RI’s position on RAGs.

·         I have the following comments on the situation in regard to RAGs and RI. The main player in this situation is the Rotary Foundation; the RI Board seems to be just a “front” for the Foundation

·         I recall that several years ago in Chicago you, ____ and ____had a conversation about the Foundation being upset because some of the Fellowships, particularly the AIDS Group, were attracting large donations from entities that had declined to  donate to the Foundation. This would appear to be a major factor in the current situation in what, in effect, is a power and money grab by the Foundation.

·         The Foundation appears to be saying that RAGS can exist as long as they give any donations they receive to the Foundation to use as it sees fit.

·         For RAGS to work they need to have a large degree of independence while following the principles of Rotary. What the Foundation is demanding is, in my view, an attempt to make RAGS subservient to its wishes and fails two of the tenets of the Four Way Test. “Is it fair to all concerned?” and “Will it build good will and better friendships?”

·         It seems that  the Foundation fails to understand that the formation of RAGs is possibly a historical shift in the way Rotarians pursue international humanitarian aid. If this is correct then the Foundation will not, in the end, be able to stop it. Alternatively those involved in the Foundation, maybe, see this all too well and regard RAGS as a threat to their power base and a loss of control.

·          

·         I think that  becoming a “pilot” RAG is a poisoned chalice and I would be wary of any involvement.

·         I agree with ____________ that, under the arrangements demanded by the Foundation, RAGS will be just talking shops and the need for their existence would be problematic.

·         I agree with ___________________that it may be better to try to find a away to make RAGs Rotary Club projects. This has worked very well for ShelterBox and has prevented the Foundation from gaining control over its activities.

·         Finally I appreciate that, because I have never been a District Governor, I have more freedom to make the comments above. PDGs and, in particular, PRIBDs have more constraints.

·         This is a good example and explanation of how collaboration of a District Committee on a service sectoral priority can have the (perhaps) unexpected benefits of increased interest and membership in Rotary Clubs.  

·         In actual fact, Rotarians always had de facto control of the 2009 Toronto Microfinance Conference, and we used it so effectively to showcase Rotary's microfinance efforts that it has resulted in a number of 2009 Toronto MIcrofinance Conference attendees expressing an interest in finding out how to become Rotarians or Rotaractors. In fact, as a direct result of the 2009 Toronto Microfinance Conference, the Toronto Sunrise Rotary Club is now working with the numerous Ryerson University student volunteers who assisted us on the conference day to start a Ryerson University Rotaract Club, as this is the only university in Toronto that does not yet have a Rotaract Club.

·         The District 7070 Microfinance Committee on the urging of the Rotarian Action Group for Microcredit (RAGM) successfully invited a number of microfinance institutions to participate as Co-Hosts, such as The Grameen Foundation, Oikocredit International, Opportunity International, the Foundation For Women and ACCESS Community Capital Fund, as a way to provide the 2009 Toronto Microfinance Conference with greater legitimacy because Rotarians rarely perform the hands-on management of microfinance funds in the field, gain free access to speakers highly knowledgeable about microfinance and attract a much wider audience than just Rotarians.

·         Based on the fact that attendance at the 2009 Toronto Microfinance Conference exceeded our target by almost 40%, Rotarians were a minority of the audience, approximately 25% of the attendees were university students who were not Rotaractors, and the more than 100 evaluation forms completed and turned in were virtually unanimous in their glowing praise of how knowledgeable the speakers were, the District 7070 Microfinance Conference has concluded that our strategy behind the 2009 Toronto Microfinance Conference was achieved.

·         The idea that any future microfinance conferences we organize include Rotarians from other Districts came from the feedback we received from Rotarians from outside District 7070, not from the District 7070 Microfinance Committee. Magnanimously, we agreed to accede to our fellow Rotarians requests and invite Districts other than District 7070 to participate with us in the 2010 Toronto Microfinance Conference. Moreover, we decided, in association with the 2010 Toronto Microfinance Conference, we will be organizing a Gala aimed at raising in excess of the $100,000

·         We are putting the final touches (God, pray I am right because learning all this is the equivalent of a PHD) on the integration of all these networks to assist our communication efforts with not only Rotarians, ROTI, Rotary-E Clubbers, 20,000 Rotarians and 10,000 Rotaractors on line and  somewhat computer savvy, but imagine the connectivity getting "the WORD" to the 350,000,000 social network participants who are members of faith-based groups, Kiwanis, Lions,and the hundreds of other groups like Philippine-American, and Romanian-American expatriots. It is a mind-altering experience.

·         The idea, of course, is to be "everything for everybody and every group" while keeping Arms Length distance from RI and all the other groups needed to complete the PUZZLE. This is critical when month pass and money is involved with people and projects, and yet keeping in mind, since there are significant costs to putting it all together, it is always easy to take cheap shots at endeavors like this. Seems only fools like _____ and _____here are willing to put in those 12-18 hours days to make it happen for the price of our Social Security checks...amazing!.

·         With over 9 million website-listed projects (Rotarian , non-Rotarian, and faith based groups, foundations, goods and services suppliers, and those I don't even remember), you can see the situation having dealt with the DRRAG network challenges. Heck, we have 16 RAGs just in the Rotary family and probably 60 Fellowships, 33,000 Clubs, and 50,000 projects. Yet, RI is number around number 140 on the Forbes Top 200 List of Humanitarian Aid Agencys. Salvation Army and Project Hope International (both strategic partners with The Network) are up at the top and still miniscual by comparison to the global "picture"

·         Aren't the Directors of RI already much to busy now do do a good job and be sufficiently prepared to take the optimal decisions at their meetings instead of just accepting what prepared for them by the GS which appears to be excessively aimed to strengthen the GS's might instead of  caring for the best of Rotary ?!

·         Yes, if our DRRAG can gain anything from it, let's make the best of this opportunity and join and so become one of the RAGs in the Pilot Project !, but with the information shared, I cannot see any advantage and one wonders if this is just another move to weaken RAGs and use them to strengthen the dominance from Evanston ?!

·         Could it be argued that since Disaster Relief is not mentioned in the Future Vision Plan, it could be useful and an advantage to be in this Pilot Project if it's possible to so bring our DRRAG closer to its aim and goal, and be able to grow to its potential for humankind ?

·         Anything is better than being as limited and paralyzed as our DRRAG is now, even if so RI will control our DRRAG so much more, but can we see any hope that by joining the RAGs Pilot Project we'll be able to do better our DRRAG's job ??

·         After the experience of the global meltdown and TRF realizing that RAGs are more attractive to donors,  wouldn't it be wise for RI and its TRF  to finally now consider to update and implement the McKinsey report which would allow TRF to be more attractive to donors ?

·         Shouldn't all be prepared to asap rotate the job of RI Gen. Secr., and, as best for RI, entrust RI's jobs always more to any of the other RI 8 offices around the world, wherever the job can be done best ?! 

·         My concern, since becoming a member of DR-RAG following the RI Convention in June, has been the restriction placed on the RAG from taking any direct initiative to support specific Rotary projects such as the Water-Survival Box so that Clubs and Districts that are minded to respond to disasters can provide funding and/or practical help. It is not clear that the proposed pilot project will do anything to help (unless I have missed something).

·          

·         Rotary's worldwide potential to save lives and relieve suffering following disaster continues to be frustrated. During the past three years we have converted some £200,000 (US$320,000) into 1350 Water-Survival Boxes (of which more than 1250 have already been sent to survivors of disaster). Each box will provide a family of five people with the means of purifying water for one year (each person gets 2 litres of drinking water each day) as well as a range of items essential for cooking, eating, drinking; health and hygience; basic tools, etc. With the support of Rotary across the developed world we could be multiplying our humanitarian aid many times over. Unless the rules are changed and DR-RAG can provide the oxygen of publicity to our efforts I fear it will remain little more than a talkiing shop. Surely the whole purpose of the Action Group is to generate ACTION! I believe Past RI Director Frank Devlyn both understood our frustration and supported the need for change.

·         Doesn't it appear that this decision does strengthen RI's administration in Evanston but weakens the RAGs' usefulness to humankind ?! Shouldn't we have been offered a list of the reasons why the new pilot project is good for Rotary ?

·         You are probably aware that, since becoming a member of DR-RAG in June, I
have posted news items relating to the distribution of 100 Water-Survival
Boxes to survivors of Typhoon Morakot in Taiwan and last month to a total of
200 WSBs to families whose homes had been destroyed in the earthquake in
West Sumatra.

On each occasion I have sought some feedback from DR-RAG - including some
assistance with funding since we now have to replace the boxes recently sent
out. In the past three months the cost incurred has totalled some US$
72,000. To date not a single offer of assistance has been forthcoming. I am
somewhat bemused regarding the purpose of DR-RAG if it is not to provide
support and encouragement to those of us actually delivering emergency aid.

Perhaps you would kindly circulate this to John Eberhard and other members
of the Executive team for me. I would welcome their constructive comments.

·         Thank you for your thoughtful email. DRRAG does acknowledge and appreciate the wonderful work that WorldWaterWorks is doing and the many posting you have made to the DRRAG website. I am sorry that you have not had any responses and I feel even more helpless because the current regulatory environment within Rotary has not permitted DRRAG to take any active role in fostering your requests. DRRAG has continued to communicate with its very few members inn the affected areas and kept them in touch with each other.

·                     Following our meeting in Birmingham, we both were of the view that there was much synergy between this Rotarian Action Group and your club based Water-Survival Box distribution initiative. Of course, this is a vital component of the immediate disaster responses that are vital to those in the stricken areas. Rotarian Action Groups must abide by rules that are different from those that apply to Clubs.  DRRAG has been hindered by being subject to Rotary rules that do not fetter Club initiatives. As a result of the decisions of the RI Board in June, DRRAG:

-          has been prohibited from raising any funds for you on the web site

                       been prohibited from passing along your calls for help to other Rotarians,                          Clubs or Districts

-          has not been able to create a “pooled fund” that would be available for the kind of immediate aid that your organization is seeking. (Nor can it work through the  –  Rotary Foundation, say, a “donor advised fund” for the same reasons.)

-          can not circulate our detailed disaster planning materials to those Clubs and Districts   most in need.

-          cannot fulfill its mission (ironically approved by the RI Board in 2007) with Rotarians who wish to develop a congruent and coordinated approach to Disaster planning, management and rebuilding.

-          At the same time, Rotary has established a “Link” program in which you can post requests of the kind that you have done on the web. While it has cancelled its disaster relief discretionary funding role, it has in the recent past asked District Governors to respond to these kinds of appeals.

-          By way of encouragement, the RI  Board has just passed what appears to be a very construction decision (although I have not seen the details yet) in which  a small selection of “revised RAGS” will be set up a  pilot project to address some of these frustrations. In the interim, the communication restrictions remain in place. I would suggest that you contact your RI Director for more details. This does appear promising!

·         Wouldn't RAGs be one of the best tools that will strengthen Rotary for its growth to best advance towards the object of Rotary ?!

·         There is not doubt that the RAGS should be a welcome component in Rotary's service to mankind.  It certainly would be of benefit to those who are trying to serve at all levels to be able to better communicate with each other with some terrific "none solicitation" programs. Case in point: There are home gardeners out there that have food rotting and hungry people praying for food! ....and I can't put the two together because I can't talk to the Districts! Where is the service in that?  This scenario applies to all of the RAGS.

·         We MUST create a better environment where the RI Board, TRF and the RAGS are working together in a non-threatening atmosphere.

·         Isn't it so that the Board of Directors of RI took a decision which will strengthen TRF of RI to the extent funding of RAGs will go through it ?

·         Shouldn't RI and TRF have instead taken relevant decisions towards undertaking to improve its functioning by limiting the time in office of the GS, decentralizing globally, and updating & implementing the McKinsey repot, possibly not only for TRF but including RI ?!

·         Doesn't it appear doubtful that this   RAGs Pilot Project   allows DRRAG to resume serving humankind so well as called for in the object of Rotary, and thus it's unwise to join it ?

·         Aren't we surprised that the RI Board hasn't apparently done anything to erase its rather destructive circularization policy ?

·         Which would be really good reasons why RAGs would want to be in this Pilot Project ? Is it just that some of the RAGs, starting with the one on Water & Sanitation which recruited its membership in RI  prospers because they did what the circularization policy forbids to our DRRAG now ?!

·         How can we undertake to get the relevant facts to the knowledge of the membership of the Board of RI which appears to not really realize the damage they are doing by such very shortsighted decisions ?

·         Doesn't it appear so unjust that  DRRAG is being given the circularization policy just when it was taking off and needed to contact all potential members and contacts ?

·         I do not see reasons why our DRRAG should join this RAGs Pilot Project ?

·         You, -------- have so very much dedicated yourself to develop the RAGs to optimally serve humankind.   What do you personally think of the RI Board's June and Nov. 2009 decisions on the RAGs ? Is this what the Board of RI in which you served looked for ?

·         Perhaps a step to consider would be for DRRAG to make the best of Rotary's recent agreement of cooperation with the UN's Global Compact of which you find details also below.

·          DRRAG's most effective if we can rely on the preparedness of Rotarians and their RCs globally, and thus we might wish to be one of the companies that are committed to sustainability and responsible business practices, and as member of it we could reach all other members everywhere. RAGs are encouraged to work with relevant/suitable organizations.

·         If  DRRAG and its membership make a point in participating in Rotary's new alliance with Global Compact, this should open to our DRRAG a new way to reach Rotarians and their RCs without breaking the veto of RI.

·         In this context I remember Paul Harris' words:

“I would like to think that the pioneering days of Rotary have only just begun. There are just as many new things to be done as ever there were. Kaleidoscopic changes are taking place, many of them without our will. Even to hang on to the fringe of this fast-changing world is about all most of us can do. Rotary simply must continue to pioneer or be left in the rear of progress.”

Paul Harris

The Rotarian - February 1945

·         I know The Board have had some problems with all the upcoming RAGs, and I think this decision is the best result for us. I am looking very much forward to see in which way the ad hoc committee of directors and trustees will act. I will cross my fingers.

·         RAGS in my opinion as that of Mat Caparas and many others will be the salvation of Rotary.  Rotary has to have a place to channel Rotarians with a special passion or interest so they do not get turned off. Who will do better effective work to be found in these RAGS to help you in committees, taskforces, etc.

·         I feel like a thorn in their RAG group’s side. At times I get the feeling I am the only one urging the RAGs to LOOK UP from the smaller project-by-project agenda to the larger vision of each group and THEN LOOK HIGHER STILL: to how they all connect. Urging them to THINK BIG, THINK GLOBALLY, THINK CONCRETELY.  Some REALLY GET the connections of the ideas.

·         This creates MORE SOLUTIONS THAN PROBLEMS. From the __________ Rag, encouragement to the RAG leaders representing us. Think Big. Think Systemically. Think coordination – example: Disaster Relief links with Disaster Readiness. Most RAGs work on Disaster Preparedness by working on the CHRONIC Disasters that kill many times the people and have many times the economic impact of disasters. We all know that disaster relief is essential. We also know that the more the community is PREPARED, the HEALTHIER the community is the more it can withstand a hit and the faster it rebounds.

·         An anecdote to illustrate the points. At a recent Rotary Convention I was at the LifeStraw / Permanet booth of Vestergaard Frandsen when the organizer of massive US relief to Banda Aceh and Tsunami stopped by. He took one of the 10,000 liter water purifier in his hand and bobbed it up and down as if weighing it. He asked: “These things purify TEN THOUSAND LITRES OF WATER?”  Answer, “Yes, but that is the old model, the new ones do 18,000 litres.”  Mouth agape, before disaster strikes, the faster, easier and (being a Rotarian, assumed as a value) CHEAPER the recovery.

·         He composed himself to ask the price, then explained, “I run a battleship – yes, literally a US battleship - of supplies that is contracted by the US government for disaster relief. We are set to go out on a few hours’ notice. We shipped out to Indonesia before the tidal wave had landed in some countries.” He added, “We airlifted pallets of water in bottles to the people after the tsunami. Taking the water there on ship was expensive. Lifting them by helicopter to the islands cost – you don’t want to know. It cost over $100,000 to provide these people there less water than this $25 gadget would get them. Man, we could package these water filters up in bubble wrap and airdrop them. For the cost of one pallet of water we could take care of water for – paused to do a calculation in his head - like a million people. No, more.  We could have these filters in place BEFORE HAND to make sure the people were ready.” At that point the battle hardened soldier was practically in tears – tears of joy.

·         My first take away: We have the technology to provide safe water for essentially everyone in the world fairly quickly. The solutions would come in waves.  The water filters provide fast, cheap, efficient safe water until the more systemic and higher cost long term solutions (we all know several) can arrive and be implemented.

·         The second take away: Water is a sine qua non. No safe water, the rest of (re)building civilization comes to a standstill. With due respect to various other RAGs, some issues come first, e.g., water.  Water (and others, e.g., Disaster Relief) can lay the groundwork of infrastructure and RELATIONSHIPS for the other inputs to build on. Sequence matters in accelerating progress.

·         Third: Lots of money is currently being poured into relief and water and other efforts. A little business talent and insight (read passionate involvement by Rotarians) can dramatically improve the results of current operations ($25 water filter versus $100,000 pallet of water bottles).

·         Fourth: Working Systemically: The money may be less than the aid groups expect and possible even less than current costs. One of the lessons of the Malaria work (60 million nets in 2008 don’t come cheap)is: the money will follow a well coordinated and thought through plan. Another lesson is that Rotarians do NOT have to pay for it.

·         Rotarians can convene and connect the groups ALREADY working on the issues. Rotarians can make sure they at least know one another and maybe even work from a common map and plan.

·         Rotary is uniquely positioned with talent, traditions and supporting institutions. Tradition = The Rotary Foundation and the UN Foundation serve as conduits for Polio funds.  The Rotary Foundation MIGHT want to serve humanity by being the conduit for funds for the work that RAGs do. If so, then TRF may want to MAKE IT EASY TO GIVE $$ to TRF and have that money deployed quickly. Please have the RAGs also articulate how to engage TRF in the future of the planet.

·         Rotarians do not do everything that is great, yet we know who does. In addition, one unique ability is that we Rotarians can make many wonderful things happen faster, more easily, and at lower costs. The task of the RAG group is to make sure that vision is shared by all, and then to operationalize that vision. 

·         The first step is to get RAGs communicating, forming OUR COMMON VISION of a HEALTHY WORLD, with all that that will take. We at the RAGs know we have more solutions than we have problems. And that is BEFORE we really get coordinated, right? Then to engage The Rotary Foundation. TRF may appreciate the help in these difficult times.

·         The solutions are many and pretty obvious to us. Let’s make sure they are equally obvious to our colleagues.

·         On behalf of REMaRAG, We appreciate your work representing us at the RAG meetings. Think Big. Think Systemically. We can speed the saving of millions of lives, the improvement of ten, nay, hundreds of millions more. By doing what we do NATURALLY and best.

·         You usually and uniquely can figure out how to inform the boards in words and ways they can understand and accept. The RI and TRF boards appear to have driven RI and TRF off the main path. Some would say into the ditch or off a cliff. Are the boards really as clueless and unresponsive as they appear?

·         Many question if the boards even understand how much of a revolt is brewing. Some Clubs and Districts are alive and well, yet feel disconnected from, often betrayed by RI and TRF. we have been told this is “our foundation” but hold on, it cuts off ‘our’ money for OUR projects?! Then does not reinstate it when the markets rebound, ouch, DOUBLY unresponsive. My district has as its foundation project Shelter Boxes, which is essentially a non-foundation project. That looks and feels like an “UP YOURS” to TRF to many of us. (I wasn’t in on the decision. But WOW!)

·         I’m wondering if I’ll even attend the convention. And seriously question why I bother commenting or sending this.

·         BOOMERS: Rotary doesn’t seem to ‘get’ how to engage the Boomers, who are 75M strong in the US alone. Globally, the Future of Rotary is in OUR hands. We are retiring and have DECADES OF time on our hands. We are active, talented, moneyed, connected and have the battle cry of “I want to Make A Difference!”  Rotary could capture the demographic.

·         One critical issue to understand is that the boomer’s attention span and time frame is NOW. Our long term goal is INSTANT GRATIFICATION.  We are looking for leverage, for impact, how to make a difference faster, better and bigger than anyone before us.

·         The pitch to give: So you want me to give money to a system that has 3 year wait to get half my money back and then to get it back, you want me to go through a cumbersome and now shut down WCS system? Puhleeze. How Retro! Looks like a system run by old white guys who don’t even ‘get’ the basics of giving. Include me out. No Sale. My attention span is over. I got stuff to make happen.

·         The Disaster Relief - Rotarian Action Group, under the new moniker: Disaster Relief -  Rotarian Action Group will apply, with certain caveats, to become a “pilot project” RAG under this provision. This decision follows consultation with its Board of Directors and Advisory Board (which collectively includes over 20 senior leaders of Rotary)

Those representatives meeting with President Kenny do not include those who are involved in Disaster Relief. There is a good explanation for this. Water, Health and Hunger are current priorities in the TRF Future Vision Plan and the RI Strategic Plan. Only in the category of “Community Development” would a “disaster” emphasis find a place in the service menu of the current Rotary International focus.

The fact that Disaster Relief is excluded from a Rotary focus is inconsistent with the historic response of Rotarians and Rotary Clubs from around the world. With no central guidance or encouragement, Rotarians have responded generously to natural disasters for over 100 years. While there is no RI facility or capacity to track this history DRRAG does know that in the past 5 years an estimated $165,000,000 has been contributed by Rotarians to Disaster Relief activities (including immediate response, temporary and transitional housing, food, water and clothing delivery, recovery efforts, rebuilding and community development) since the great Tsunami in 2004/5. This does not include local contributions or contributions in kind which are significant. A large part of these funds have been raised by the “club-supported” independent NGO Trust called “ShelterBox”. On a per/Rotarian basis, this is far greater than the Rotary Foundations track record. It reflects to impulse to respond to a needed cause (like Polio) in lieu of a non-specific program including a lot of projects (i.e like scholarships and one-off matched grants). It is clear that Rotarians would respond is a significant way if the Rotarian Action Group itself were allowed to function by the Rotary International Board of Directors in the congruent fashion that was contemplated when it received approval in 2007 and pursuant to those sections of the Code of Policies that call for it to implement its mandate through Clubs and Districts.

At this time, DRRAG is essentially non-functional. It is impossible to comply with its mandate under the current rules. It has no means of raising operational funding and no means of expanding its membership base. In not permitted to communicate with the Rotary Network and accordingly, it has been neutralized. This, an affiliation with the Rotary Foundation appears, at the present time, the most viable way in which DRRAG would have any expectation of becoming the operational NGO in Disaster Management that it was intended to be. The alternative would for DRRAG to become a “club-based” international service “project” NGO and reach out to the world as ShelterBox does. This would not be a preferred alternative.  

·         I have read with interest the comments expressed over many days and I am sorry that the whole affair is being turned into a squabble, nearly back to where it was 5 years ago!  We are told on the one hand we have total backing (Ray) and then No (Board / employees!)  It does make one wonder who runs the organisation? and can any incoming President put their stamp/input into our organisation? are they pressured to keep the status quo - to not rock the boat?  It was pointed out to us earlier that the programme of the IA 2010 is in place!  Is 2011 already in tablets of stone !!

·         They are quite right to fear money not flowing into the TRF, but not at the fault of RAG's.  In my humble opinion, giving to TRF could cease all together very soon without careful handling. I agree entirely that we must rid the planet of Polio but not to the detriment of everything else we as Rotarians strive to achieve.  I am currently Club President and ask the question - Why should my Rotary club give to the TRF for the next ten months knowing their chances of getting any returns on that money in the form of Matching Grants is non existent?  There is no longer any carrot! The Gates money is wonderful but I fear if Gates is the Golden Goose laying the golden eggs how long before Rotarians grow tired of eggs?  It reminds me of childhood soccer (that is the round ball!) game when you constantly move the goal posts !! Challenge $100,000  challenge $100,000 then another $100,000 then another $100,000 ???? for how long.

·         There is a much bigger picture that our leaders should be looking at and there has to be a more diplomatic way of handling our million + workers.

·         iin my humble opinion to take a breath, stop, think about what is occurring and realize what we ALL have to lose.  At this point in time, what is important?  Is it what we were promised and are now told we cannot have?  Is it a SINGLE table at the IA being used by all of us?   Or, is the important thing the BIG picture . . .the continuation and growth of our individual RAGS, each in its own way . .. but in complete cooperation with TRF and the support of the Board?  I believe it is the latter.

·         There is a quiet revolt going on in Rotary – Rotary is clearly NOT in my hands or the hands of my club – it is in the hands of senior leaders with a sense of entitlement and who do not listen to the grass roots. No wonder we loose so many members!

·         No one in RI and no organizational entity within RI ever gained anything by "demanding" something.  As we all know, it is very easy to find someone who can tell you "No" when you want or need something and very difficult to find someone who will tell you "yes". 

·         Please remember what it took to get the RAGs approved by RI in the first place and then consider how any approach that places "demands" on anyone could backfire against all of us.  We all have good works to do and we don't want ANYTHING to stop that. 

·         RAGs are few in number but mighty in our missions and the good works and all of us want to see that continue.  Is this single table for a few brief days worth the risk of alienating people we need to have as our supporters both now and in the future?

·         Let us support those who will be speaking on our behalf at the San Diego Meeting

·         As a very wise person once said . . . "I long to accomplish a great and noble task, but it is my chief duty to accomplish humble tasks as though they were great and noble.  The world is moved along, not only by the mighty shoves of its heroes, but also by the aggregate of the tiny pushes of each honest worker."  Helen Keller.

·         As Frank Devlyn said, we need to "Create Awareness" . . . more awareness and understanding among our Rotary leaders (by tiny pushes), so they will truly understand the need to "Take Action" in our behalf to insure the growth and prosperity of the RAGS and of Rotary International itself.  They need to understand that we are true "partners" of TRF.  We provide "added value" to rather than "devalue" the work of TRF. We need to see the detail of how the RAG/TRF DAF will actually work in practice

·         I certainly don't ever want the RAGS to be seen as a group of "radicals"within RI. . . that could easily mean the end of all RAGS and then everyonewould lose.  That's something I don't ever want to see happen.  

·         Recently, the rules have really been tightened by the RI Board, and we have to figure out how a proactive way to grow our membership.Without growth, an organization dies. If we can't get the RAGs publicized and promoted to the incoming DGEs, and if we can't write DGE's without RI Board approval, how does one grow the RAG?  We are stuck (and I hope it is temporarily)

·         don't give up hope on RAGs-- they will ultimately become part of the normal landscape in Rotary. 

·         To our knowledge the RI board was in the last meeting at the beginning in favor of RAGs. But their opinion changed in that meeting as some argued (wrongly): TRF is losing money by RAGs activities and RI loses control on RAGs.

·         The board and the RAGs group leaders need to continue the dialog and find resolutions.  RAGs is one of the most significant and developing areas of Rotary today.  We cannot be throwing cold water on this hot and very benevolent movement.

·         The board and the Secretariat  need to provide a mechanism for RAGs to showcase their missions/projects, and to solicit members.  Maybe one issue of The Rotarian each year is dedicated to RAGs…and to solicit engagement.  Certainly, there should be a hot spot on the RI website to give members and opportunity to get involved.  Wow! What an opportunity this would be.

·         All of our official RI training events should provide an opportunity to acknowledge the work of the RAGs…and to clarify that these are Rotary volunteers and non-mandated programs of R.I.  For the last two years, I have invited the RAGs to have exhibits in our Rotary Institute.

·         The official RI directory should give a more prominent placement of the RAGS (right now they are pretty much imbedded in the Rotarian Fellowships).  In my mind, both are important, but no comparison regarding the value to Rotary’s mission.

·         DRRAG.  We, in the southwest U.S. and those in the Caribbean and those in the wake of the Tsunami, earthquakes in Pakistan, fires in Australia/Califoriana/Arizona/Colorado/Kansas/Florida, etc., know the importance of an in-place mechanism in the event a disaster strikes.  Rotarians have shown in Tsunami, Pakistan, Katrina, Rita, Latin America…that they will not do nothing.  They are going to get involved and do what Rotarians want to do—help. We are not the Red Cross, not Salvation Army, not World Care, etc.  But we do have a track record and we do have a developing curriculum vitae of what we can do in Disaster Response.  The General Secretary now has the authority to initiate, in consultation with RIP and TRF Chair, a DAF through TRF in the event of a major disaster.  So far that authority has not been exercised.

·         The key issue here is that the RAGs and the RI board need to work out a game plan—for engaging these 16 humanitarian interest groups in the work of Rotary.  We cannot afford to lose the talent and the energy…and we will not.

Below: Responses to the policy reminder sent out by Jessie Allerton in July, 2009

2009-10 Rotarian Action Groups Chairs
> Cc:     2009-10 Rotarian Action Groups Committee
> Dear Rotarians:
> Greetings from Evanston.  At its June 2009 meeting, the Board changed the circularization policy for Rotarian Action Groups.  The amended policy now appears as follows:
> 43.020.17.  Rotarian Action Group Circularization Policy

> A Rotarian Action Group desiring to request the cooperation of Districts, Clubs or Rotarians for any purpose including, but not limited to, the solicitation of financial assistance or participation in commercial ventures shall first secure authorization from the Board.  No Rotarian Action Group shall solicit funds on Web sites, with the exception of membership dues.  

> A Rotarian Action Group engaging in these types of activities must comply with RI policy for use of the Rotary Marks, including use of proper identification and qualifying language regarding the Rotarian Action Group. Even within the limits described above, it is not permissible for a Rotarian to circularize on matters affecting his or her individual business interests including members of other Rotarian Action Groups.  

In accordance with this policy, Rotarian Action Groups should seek Board approval if they wish to contact Rotary Clubs, Districts, or other groups of Rotarians directly.  Rotarian Action Groups may of course continue to freely contact their own membership.  In addition, this restriction does not apply to specific, targeted communications to individual Rotarians, the RI President, or RI Board members.
> We understand that it is important for your groups to be able to publicize their activities to a broader Rotarian audience.  To facilitate this, we are introducing a new electronic bulletin for Rotarian Action Groups updates, which we will distribute on a quarterly basis to various service-related district chairs that are in a position to share this information with the Clubs in their Districts.  We invite each Rotarian Action Group chair to send us a paragraph-length update (not to exceed 200 words) on any important ongoing or forthcoming initiatives.  As this update will be brief, it should include links to your groups’ own Web sites where Rotarians can find pertinent details on the events or activities mentioned. 
> Please note the following deadlines for submitting your groups’ quarterly updates to our attention, and the estimated distribution dates for the quarterly bulletin:

> Deadline for RAGs to submit a one paragraph update to actiongroups@rotary.org   Estimated date for distribution of the Rotarian Action Groups electronic bulletin      
> 15 August 2009  15 October 2009        
> 15 November 2009        15 January 2010
> 15 February 2009        15 April 2010  
> 15 May 2009     15 July 2010   
>
> Please send your updates via e-mail to my attention at actiongroups@rotary.org.  Your group’s submission may be edited for length if it exceeds 200 words.  Photos or other attachments should not be included.
> Thank you for your attention and please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding Rotary’s policies for Rotarian Action Groups.

>  

Kind regards,
> Jesse Allerton
> Supervisor, Programs & Presidential Initiatives
> Rotary International
> Tel: 847-866-4494

·         Man, this just shows where the problems of over control can occur. Think that your suggestion that the DG contact RI is a good one.

·         Just wish that our military contacts had not been made aware of the problem. Makes Rotary look like a bunch of stuffed shirts. Not helpful to our working together.We have all invested so much time and energy into making the military humanitarian connection that I don't want to see that negatively impacted.

·         I suggest that you find out what is specifically needed from the local Rotarians and then forward that to all the Clubs that have, or recently have had, projects in the Philippines and coordinate this as Rotarians not DRRAG or RI. I am afraid that some of the folks at the top do not understand how this makes many Rotarians feel. We all want to help without impediment. They do have a problem and that is how to work with other non-Rotarian organizations without "stepping in it" by inadvertantly partnering with a group that does not share Rotary's ethics or has a hidden agenda. That is understood but this just rankels.

·         The RI Code of policies dealing with RAGS circularization was lifted from another section of the code a couple of years ago – almost word for word. That section dealt with circularization for personal gain and fund raising for commercial purposes.  It did not come from the section that provides an exception to circularization for WCS purposes  (referred to as the World Community Service exception). No one would argue that RAGs are in the world community service business. To say that at the least, the section (until the June Board meeting) was ambiguous. There was no communication with RAGs leadership from RI to detail what was intended by the section but it was clear that an option (as Ron advises) was to communicate directly with DGs. Clubs were not specifically excluded except in the “commercialization” context.

There are some (perhaps many) who would disagree with your comment that to have Clubs inundated with information from various approved  service entities within Rotary would be a bad thing. Rotarian Presidents  are business and community leaders who would be expected to be able to differentiate between emails that may have some interest for their Clubs and those that would not. The delete key is only a millisecond away! At the moment, without having access to the “information pipeline” (i.e. International Assembly – Pets – District Assembly – Club Presidents) there is no adequate way for Rotarian Action Groups to alert the Rotary World as to what they do and how Rotarians can participate.. Those same people would argue that this is very short sighted policy.  

Membership development is an explicit requirement for RAGs in the Code. How do RAGs accomplish this? Attending the International Convention is completely counter-productive and requires the expenditure of Rotarian funds for purposes other than the cause supported by the RAG. The return by way of membership subscriptions is disappointing. With less than 1% of the Rotarians of the world in attendance and a preponderance of them not interested in Global Networking opportunities in the House of Friendship, the cost/benefit is clearly negative.

In respect of _____’s reference to a RAG that did not seek DG approval (DRRAG). you should also be aware that before the selected circularization, by way of a pilot project of DRRAG, to a limited number of Club Presidents was sent out, the General Secretary was alerted. There was no response from Evanston on this question of clarification of the then Code Policy. This silence is significant given the enormity of the re-action that has had the affect of changing the code and thereby affecting all RAGs. This was explained at the meeting in Birmingham of the RI RAGs Committee to which all RAGs Chairpersons were invited. At the same time, the DGs from the Districts in which the Clubs were located were also circularized as explicitly called for in the then policy. Even some Board members present were mystified by the interpretation given to this section of the code. At the same time, the DGs from the Districts in which the Clubs were located were also circularized by DRRAG as explicitly called for in the then policy. No request for fund raising was included in either letter – just information about the plan of DRRRAG to grow its membership, why and how.

It is also of interest to see the results of that “circularization” . A RAG has no access to Rotarians. The “circularization was done in February 2009. The result was a dramatic increase in the membership of DRRAG.

Since the implementation of the RI Board policy regarding Rotarian Action Group prohibition to contact DG's for the purpose of communicating with district Clubs, there has been a dramatic turnaround in membership subscriptions to the DRRAG. For the 4 month period preceding the June 2009 Board decision, DRRAG attracted, with the assistance of DGs, 345 new members in a 3 month period. The convention generated 19 members over 5 days in the House of Friendship.

Since the convention and the "GAG" order placed on all RAGs the total number of new members has been a grand total of four (5). So, circularization works. The GAG order has rendered the AG impotent in dealing with recent disasters to the point that it cannot even contact Rotarians in the hard hit south pacific to tell them where and how they can access assistance! Does this make any sense at all?

So what was the “harm” v. the potential survival of a RAG? Only some objective observer like yourself would be able to tell! I am one who certainly believes that a RAG should under no circumstances be arbitrarily circularizing Clubs for funding of projects or seeking administrative funding or funding for commercial or personal purposes. This is a non-starter. But this is quite different from providing information to Clubs about the program of the RAG and the opportunity to have Rotarians consider joining a RAG of their choice. Where else will a club get this information? If you could recommend any other viable method of fulfilling the Code’s admonition to expand membership and number of Districts engaged in the work of RAGs (as the policy calls for) we would all be grateful to hear from you.

·         RI & TRF NEED TO SERVE BETTER THE ROTARY CLUBS' EFFORTS TOWARDS THE OBJECT OF ROTARY. At present the General Secretary (GS) and some top RI staff close to the GS appear to unfortunately have as their first, top priority the consolidation of their position and power to the detriment of the object of Rotary and the Rotary Clubs, and only thereafter, secondly,  they act in favor of the object of Rotary as their job description should require.    Although it's perhaps human nature, this cannot be tolerated, because, only by overcoming this situation and putting Rotary first in their priorities, Rotary can do even more and achieve the very best of its potential in best serving humankind where the need is greatest,  and so fulfill Rotary's object.

·         As we heard at the RAG Chairs' meeting in Birmingham, RI appears to seek to channel asap. the funding for the RAGs' projects through TRF.  Doing so is counterproductive because, as RAGs have observed, it's normal that donors prefer donating directly to the RAGs' specific professionally-implemented projects, instead of seeing the overhead costs of TRF take away a relatively high part of the cash donated, and also taking so much more time till the realization of the project humankind needs promptly.

·         The same attitude is reflected in RI's decision to want all RAG communications to Clubs and Districts approved in advance by the RI Board;   and similarly we observe for example how the GS holds very tightly in his hands the Relations of RI with the UN, and we know how the GS has expanded his control over the YEP, so decreasing also the quality and vitality our Youth Exchange Program that is of the best Rotary offers.    Yes, increasingly Rotary suffers from the GS's increasing unnecessary nor beneficial control over it as he continues further increasing his influence in RI.

·         It could be said that, while RI and TRF were created to serve the Rotary Clubs , it rather appears now that RI increasingly wants the opposite as the GS builds and controls from his office an always stronger dominating RI, expecting Rotarians and RCs to serve and pay for it, and, while Rotarians with their Clubs do the work, he increasingly takes the praise, and usually not even bothers to answer the Rotarians' mail.

·         The Directors of RI and the Trustees of TRF are wonderful, experienced, capable, quality Rotarians whom we need to give the opportunity to improve the quality of their decision. They need more useful better documentation and the necessary time for their decisions.

·         I believe that there is lack of understanding of RAGS….this is due in part to the fact that only one Board member is on the RAGS committee, I was that person one year, and secondly, the rotation of Board members off the Board in two years, with one-half of the Board being replaced each year, gives no corporate memory of what has happened before, and what is happening in an area they are unfamiliar with…

·         The Board, due to lack of understanding and familiarity, has a fear that the RAGS are out of hand, that they are doing unauthorized circulization, that they are soliciting funds that would otherwise go the TRF, and the Trustees has the same issues, times

·         RAGS need to educate, cultivate and pacify Board members, particularly Board members who do not have familiarity..

Appendix “A”

Rotarian Action Groups (RAGs) are becoming effective delivery agents for World Community Service. These entities, recognized by Rotary International, are beginning to develop capacity to implement major humanitarian programs in congruent, multi-country initiatives and each has the potential of becoming another “Polio Plus”. Of course, all Rotarians recognize that RI will not launch a singular “Corporate” program like Polio (if at all) until our goal dedicated to that special program has been achieved.

The RAGs program is undertaken in a way that enhances the image of Rotary but has a risk of failure. Consistency of approach in WCS is now regarded as an important policy objective of RI in ways that increase the potential for success. “Lessons learned” have generated several universal principals that have been adopted by Governments and many international NGO’s. It is prudent for Rotary to understand these principals and be in lock-step with the best of them.

Every RAG represents a specific sectoral program area in WCS. Each priority identified and recognized by the RI Board of Directors is consistent with a program found in either the “Menu of Service Opportunities” or “Structured Programs” of RI. Thus, each RAG carries with it an enormous responsibility of accurately projecting the ethic, the history and the excellence expected by the RI Board as each manifests the Object of Rotary.

This paper intends to provide is a set of general principles that represent the keys to effective development.  It is hoped that these principles will assist in the planning and implementation of effective international service projects or programs (World Community Service) that are sustainable and contribute to the reduction of poverty in the developing community and/or country to which Rotary efforts are directed. To a large extent, experience gained by the Rotary recognized Multi-District Activity in Canada (The Canadian Rotary Collaboration for International Development - CRCID) has been a helpful precedent for many RAGs. This 23 District Rotary NGO focuses much attention and resources to “development education” and “capacity development” for Clubs wanting to increase their own expertise in WCS. CRCID attempts to ensure a consistent application of these principles. Much of its capacity in WCS has been adopted from the Canadian International Development Agency and international standards.

Before reviewing these principles, it would be useful to provide some context by which these principles were developed. At the same time, I would direct the reader’s attention to some material that is available in the Rotary download section of WWW.Rotary.org. The WCS Projects Exchange and the WCS Handbook provide excellent learning material to support enhanced service activity.

Introduction:

“International Development” is a recent global phenomenon that was one of the outcomes of the Second World War.  The reconstruction of Europe under the U.S. led Marshall plan was one of the first large scale development programs.

Since the late 1940s there has been a proliferation of governments and civil society organizations dedicated to assisting the poverty-stricken populations of the world.  Rotary is at the forefront of these activities through its many international service projects such as Matching and 3H grants.  With its global network of Clubs, Rotary is in the enviable position of having both reliable and professional expertise in many of the countries that are most in need of assistance. 

During the 1990s international development underwent an evaluation by the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) on behalf of the donor countries, including Canada and the United States.  It was determined that the approaches taken were “too narrowly focused and often failed to recognize the cultural and political context in which development takes place.” [1]

The evaluation led to international momentum for supporting a more comprehensive approach to development that resulted in the 2000 Millennium Declaration outlining the collective commitment to sustainable development and poverty reduction with 8 development goals to be met by 2015.   

It was found that for development to be effective certain general principles could be applied to any sustainable project or program. Each has application to the evolution of operational strategies being developed by Rotarian Action Groups. 

The general principles are:

• Local Ownership;

• Gender Equality;

• Improved donor coordination;

• Stronger partnerships;

• Results based approach; and,

• Building Capacity.

Local Ownership:

It is important for the sustainability of any international service project or program that it reflects the priorities of the beneficiaries.  Whereas this may seem obvious, “communities within the community” can complicate the identification of the beneficiaries.  There are often different groups within a village or town, each with different priorities.  Gender is a good example, with women and men having different priorities.  Men often look at development assistance as improving the economic status of the village and/or themselves whereas women often seek to improve the living conditions for their family.  Therefore it is important to determine who will be the primary beneficiaries for the project.

It is important to ensure that a project is a priority of the community it most affects. The community could be large (i.e a region or whole country) or small (a small village or area within a region). Extensive consultation with the group prior to the implementation will increase the probability of the project being successful. The high level of involvement of community members in identifying the need, planning the project, contributing resources and becoming actively engaged in the implementation, managing and monitoring the project is essential. 

Gender Equality:

Gender equality is an essential principle for the successful implementation of an effective development program and/or project. Women do not automatically benefit from development initiatives, no matter how well intentioned, because of systemic barriers to their full and equal participation”.[2] The United Nations has identified gender equality as a central issue for achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

Development agencies are currently focused upon improving the capabilities of women because in many cultures women are excluded from community decision making processes and have less access than men to:

Ø  Education/training;

Ø  Land (a determinant of wealth);

Ø  Secure employment;

Ø  Leisure; and,

Ø  Political process.

Some examples of the disparity between men and women are indicated in the following statistics:

• Women in many developing countries produce most of the food consumed in Sub-Saharan Africa but rarely do they have secure tenure to the land they work.

• Of the children who do not attend school in the developing countries 60% are girls.

• 67% of the 879 million illiterate adults in the world are women.[3]

It has become a maxim that by focusing upon the women and girls in a community a project has a much greater probability of successfully improving the living standards for that community.  A good example is the jointly planned communal well project (see appendix A) where once the women were consulted about their priority needs, the project was successful and the living conditions of the community were improved.

When planning a project or a program that will affect the entire community it is important to consult with the female leaders of the community to ensure that this is what they also want.  If there is not consensus, then the project should be re-evaluated prior to moving forward.    

Gender equality contributes substantially to improving the well being of women, men, girls and boys in our partner countries, which is at the heart of the millennium mission.

Although important progress has been made in recent years toward achieving gender equality, much remains to be done. Entering the 21^st century, Rotary should remain committed to creating, with our partners, a better world for all—a world where inequality on any grounds, be it gender, class, race or ethnicity, is finally overcome. A Rotary gender equality policy is one tool to make this vision a reality.

The Goal

To support the achievement of equality between women and men to ensure sustainable development.

The Objectives

• To advance women's equal participation with men as decision-makers in shaping the sustainable development of their societies;

• To support women and girls in the realization of their full human rights; and

• To reduce gender inequalities in access to and control over the resources and benefits of development.

Guiding Principles

Eight guiding principles:

1. Gender equality must be considered as an integral part of all RAG policies, programs and projects;

2. Achieving gender equality requires the recognition that every policy, program and project affects women and men differently;

3. Achieving gender equality does not mean that women become the same as men;

4. Women's empowerment is central to achieving gender equality;

5. Promoting the equal participation of women as agents of change in economic, social and political processes is essential to achieving gender equality;

6. Gender equality can only be achieved through partnership between women and men;

7. Achieving gender equality will require specific measures designed to eliminate gender inequalities; and

8. Rotary policies, programs, and projects should contribute to gender equality.

Donor Coordination:

Many civil society organizations, such as Rotary, implement small and isolated development projects.  There is a risk that this approach could lead to duplication and/or gaps in the implementation of development priorities.  It also places an immense administrative burden on the already limited capacity of host organizations, communities and Clubs. 

For example, in Honduras there are over 180 Rotary Clubs implementing International Service projects.  In order to coordinate all of this activity, Rotary in Honduras has created a committee in order to reduce duplication and to prevent gaps.

Prior to implementing a project some research should be undertaken by the Rotary club(s) to ensure that a similar project has not already been approved or completed in the community either by another Rotary club or a non-Rotary organization. TRF can be an important partner in this strategy. Using the Club-to-Club relationship a project matched grant can augment and “piggy-back” on the central RAG program.

Adhering to the principle of Donor Coordination will reduce duplication and alleviate administrative burden.  This will improve both the effectiveness and efficiency of the project while ensuring that it meets the priority needs of the beneficiaries.

Stronger Partnerships:

International Development, to be successful, requires partnerships between groups that are committed to assisting another group improve their standard of living and the recipients of this assistance.  Whenever there is more than a single group undertaking an activity the responsibilities of each group must be clearly articulated and fully understood by all concerned.  Rotary Clubs will enter into a contract when they seek matching grant or 3H funding from The Rotary Foundation.  This contract identifies the responsibilities of each partner. RAGs, using the “Rotary Modal” will do likewise.

But what about those projects where there is no supplemental funding agreement and it is simply a club-to-club project?  While Rotarians are generally ethical and honest with a legitimate desire to do “good” in the world, this does not prevent misunderstandings from occurring that could negatively impact a project, especially with language and cultural differences.  An agreement or a memorandum of understanding would reduce the potential for any misunderstanding. A well-crafted business plan approach understood and agreed to by all parties involved is essential.  

Another important key to a strong partnership is regular communications during the life of the project that can identify potential issues and challenges before they negatively impact the project.  Due to the annual turnover of club officers, regular communication can be disrupted by the replacement of a project contact.  In order to maintain continuity and ensure that the communication is not interrupted, it is recommended that the project contacts should remain in place for the life of the project. 

The continuity found in the structure and governance of a RAG facilitates a longer-range expectation of program implementation. Polio Plus is a good example of where enduring international partnerships and continuity of RI and TRF governance has been a key strategic policy.

Results Based Approach:[4]

The fifth general principle is using a results based approach is project planning, implementation and evaluation.  What this means is that the goals and objectives of the project need to be clearly articulated based upon the current situation and the anticipated changes to this situation.

During the project planning a needs assessment should be undertaken to determine the baseline information.  During implementation it is important to regularly monitor the project by comparing the actual results with the needs assessment information and the results that were anticipated.  This ensures that the project is on track to achieving its goal.  Upon completion the project needs to be evaluated to determine if it was successful and if there were any lessons to be learned that could be applied to the next project.   

Rotarians, like most people, dislike reports.  However, like death and taxes, reports are an inevitable fact of life.  International Development has become more report focused over the past decade as government agencies and civil society organizations justify the funds being spent on assistance to their respective constituencies. The RI Code of Policies required reports from RAGs.

Reporting using a Results Based Management (RBM) framework link the project activities to both short term and longer-term results.  For example a short-term result, also known as an output, for a well project would report on how much water the well is producing and if it is fit for human consumption.  The short-term results are then linked to the effect this well is having on the beneficiaries.  For example, because the beneficiaries have access to clean water there is a 20% reduction in the incidence of water-borne diseases in the community.  This is a longer-term or outcome result. 

Donor governments and their respective civil society partners are adopting this results based approach because it assists the partners plan and implement an effective project and the reports provide the key information to the donors justifying the financial and administrative contribution.  Considerable information is available to assist in better understanding of the RBM modal.

Capacity Building:

Building capacity is helping the beneficiaries of international assistance increase their own ability to help themselves to ensure that benefits are sustained beyond the life of individual projects. Capacity development involves encouraging and supporting changes in people's activity, behavior, skills and relationships that improve the ability of groups and individuals to achieve their goals.

Capacity development is often associated with an approach to sustainable development.  An often-used example to illustrate this is:

GIVE A HUNGRY MAN A FISH; YOU FEED HIM FOR A DAY.

TEACH HIM HOW TO FISH; YOU WILL FEED HIM FOR A LIFETIME.

Most of us have heard of this adage. International assistance to be ultimately successful (which means that it is no longer required), the people in the developing countries living in poverty must receive the tools to help themselves.  This includes access to education and adequate healthcare as the precursors of real poverty reduction.  Once an individual and a community is healthier and has access to universal education, the foundation is set for them to take action to reduce their poverty. 

But capacity development is more complex than feeding a hungry man and teaching him how to fish.   One reason why is because the concept has evolved from many schools of thoughts relating to organizational, institutional, systems, and participatory processes approaches:

- The ORGANIZATIONAL approach focuses on building capacity at the level of individual organizations

- The   INSTITUTIONAL approach focuses on the processes and rules that govern socio-economic and political organization in the society at large

- A   SYSTEMS approach emphasizes the interdependencies among social actors and the need to promote capacity building in a holistic way; and

- A   PARTICIPATORY process approach emphasizes ownership and participation as fundamental elements.

Most interventions involve an approach involving elements of each of these schools of thought.

A question that’s frequently asked is:  Is not development fundamentally about capacity development?

Development is about a society’s capacity to fulfill the needs of its members in an increasingly satisfactory way, based on resources available to it.   But not everyone thinks of development in these terms - for example, development is often confused with increased GNP per capita or with industrialization.  (See some World Bank reports).

But there is more to the concept of capacity development than just development.  Capacity development also has to do with the TYPES of capacity that are emphasized. Society’s capacity to meet the needs of its members depends on the resources available to it, and on how well these resources are utilized.  The resources available are wide ranging and may be more or less tangible in nature. 

TANGIBLE RESOURCES include physical assets such as infrastructure, roads, wells, dams, plant and machinery etc.  It also includes some relatively tangible or measurable features having to do with the education and health of the population itself.

Then there is a wide range of less tangible – but no less important - dimensions of capacity having to do with skills, experience and creativity; social cohesion and social capital; values and motivations; habits and traditions; institutional culture etc.   

These INTANGIBLE DIMENSIONS of capacity, often referred to as ``capabilities``, are crucial because they determine how well society uses the other resources at its disposal. The intangibles of development are much more difficult to influence than other, more concrete dimensions of capacity. 

The implications of adopting a capacity development perspective are important.  What the approach calls for is a shift in focus, away from one biased towards the delivery of tangible outcomes or the short-term satisfaction of development needs, to one of promoting ``enhanced abilities to identify and meet development challenges, in a sustainable manner`, with an emphasis on ``core`` capabilities.    The emphasis is thus on the intangibles of development.  

External funding agencies or groups pursuing capacity development may do so from different perspectives – as an approach, or as a goal – and may take on a variety of roles.   They need to decide on entry points, and need to do so with due regard for the political choices implied in everything that they do.  

The application of a capacity development approach requires that funding agencies such as Rotary develop their own capacities in the form of a corporate culture; strategic approach and practice based on the facilitation of others development. A Rotarian Action Group has the potential of achieving a higher level of capacity to undertake WCS then does a club. 

Like all capacity development, such a shift involves learning by doing.  It requires will and leadership, and can only happen over an extended period of time. The time cycle of leadership within a club and the transfusion of annual leadership change make this problematic. Fortunately a RAG does not have this problem. At the same time, the continuity found in the leadership and governance of a RAG can continually utilize the Rotary International Network to perform its mandate. 

The capacity development perspective is sophisticated and challenging to apply, but it is one well worth taking up in our pursuit to use aid more effectively and for sustainable development.  This will ultimately lead to poverty reduction and improved quality of life for the communities at large.

A RAG has the advantage over many engaged in development assistance to take on this leadership role. It has a worldwide network of potential partners in our Clubs and Districts and a wide range of resources to tap into. The crux is how will a RAG utilize this through its local partners in a strategic, holistic way to reach out to the thousands of communities in need? 

How will a RAG enhance the capacity of its partners who in turn will strengthen the capacities of those engaged or will benefit from the development efforts?  I believe that with the many brilliant minds now populating our Rotarian Action Groups – it can be done.

Perhaps the admonition should be modified to:

GIVE A HUNGRY MAN A FISH AND YOU FEED HIM FOR A DAY,

ENABLE HIM TO FISH, AND HE WILL BE ABLE TO FEED HIMSELF AND OTHERS OVER TIME, AND MAYBE FOR A LIFETIME.

Conclusion:

John Eberhard, PRID

Chairman: Canadian Rotary Collaboration for International Development

Member: RAGs Committee 2007-2010

May 28, 2007

Partial Reading List:

Books:

Chossudovsky, Michel.  The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order.  2^nd. Edition.  Global Outlook,  2003.

Easterly, William.  The White Man’s Burden:  Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest have Done so Much Ill and So Little Good.  Penguin Press: New York, 2006.

Sachs, Jeffrey D.  The End of Poverty:  Economic Possibilities for our Time.  Penguin Press: New York, 2005.

Stackhouse, John. Out of Poverty and into Something More Comfortable.  Random House of Canada Limited, 2000.

CRCID Papers:

(Available from the Zone 22 and CRCID Websites)

CRCID Three-Year Program Proposal: Blueprint for Change. March 2006.

CRCID Strategic Plan for 2004 – 2007.  July 1, 2004.

CRCID Policy Manual.  July 1, 2006.

CRCID Quarterly Newsletters between November 2004 and June 2006.

Canadian Reports:

Canadian International Development Agency.  Canada Making a Difference in the World:  A Policy Statement on Strengthening Aid Effectiveness.  September 2002.

Canadian International Development Agency.  A Role of Pride and Influence in the World:  Development.  Government of Canada, 2005.

Canadian International Development Agency.  Results-based Management in CIDA: An Introductory Guide to the Concepts and Principles.  

Canadian International Development Agency.  CIDA's Policy on Gender Equality. March, 1999.

International Reports:

United Nations Development Program.  UNDP Human Development Report:  Millennium Development Goals – A compact Among Nations to end Human Poverty.   Oxford University Press, Inc.:  New York, 2003. 

Commission for Africa.  Our Common Interest:  Report of the Commision for Africa.  March, 2005.

“Appendix A”

A Rotarian was visiting a community in a developing country and quickly noted that the women were walking several kilometers a day to a stream to access their drinking water.   The animals in the area also utilized the stream resulting in the water being of very poor quality.  The Rotarian left the community determined to provide the community with a well that would save the women from the daily long walk and improve the health with clean drinking water.

Once back home, support for the project was forthcoming and the well was duly built.  The Rotarian and the club were very proud of their achievement.

A few months later the individual returned to the community and was amazed to find that the well was not being used.  The women continued to walk several kilometers to get their daily water.  The village leaders stated that the well was working just fine, but the women refused to use it.

Asking the women, it was found that their priority was not the water well because they wanted the walk to the stream.  Asked why, they stated that it was the only opportunity they had to get away from their men and discuss issues important to them.

The Rotarian then asked what it would take for the women to start using the well.  They responded by requesting a “women only” community building.  Another project was implemented and the community building was subsequently constructed.  A return visit to the community found both the well and the community building being utilized with the women using the extra time now available together to make crafts that were being sold to generate extra income for their families, thus contributing to the greater welfare for the community.

Rotarian Action Groups

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