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



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

Dear Fellow Rotarians,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Tin Tin Nu Raschid, Chair 2005-06

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

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


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


A. Legal Recognition: RAG must:

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

B. Legal Conditions:

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

C. RAG Internal Administration:

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

D. RAG projects:

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




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


Reply

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

April 5, 2006

Hello Bill,

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

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

Recognition of a Rotarian Action Group requires a very careful policy and administrative framework. The Board, in June 2005 went a long way in articulation this. Some issues were overlooked. Because I brought this program proposal to the Board in the first place, I continued to provide input. Last August, I made the suggestion to President Carl-Wilhelm and the G/S (based on the materials we developed in Committee) as to how this recognition process might unfold. Certainly, my Board Administration Committee focused on this before making the recommendation to the Programs Committee and to the Board. We reviewed, in detail, the way in which this distinction between the Concern for Health (now the Water, Health and Hunger Concerns Resource Group) was mandated and how the RAGs would be structured. Obviously, the Board was satisfied with it. But now, it does not seem so clear!

Your question is good also because it begs the distinction between what RI is expected to do (i.e., in the language of the Resource Group mandate: "This resource group will work to increase awareness ---provide information -----etc.") and what is expected to be done by the clubs. A Rotarian Action Group would not be expected to duplicate the mandate of a Resource Group although it may well have similar capacity in certain very focused ways (i.e developing operational protocols for a health Fair, as compared to informing Clubs that a Health Fair is a possible way of doing a local health Community project). An Action group is required by its policy framework to work through the clubs and districts - the Rotary network. Yes, an Action Group may very well make use of information that comes from the Resource Group but of more interest, subject to the criteria used to recognize them, they would have a much higher level of applied expertise and focus then what we have seen in Resource Groups (unfortunately). Primarily, this is because of the very restricted mandate and/or a lack of detailed "job descriptions" provided to Resource Groups. Witness, the grief that was provided the World Community Service Committee last year just because it wanted to "do something" - i.e. host a meeting! Perhaps it is this latter point that has prompted so many Rotarians to create the many proliferating "cause related" Rotarian based entities.

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

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

Best regards,

John


Brian Knowles

Dear John,

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

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

Brian.



Frank Devlyn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Frank







John Eberhard

March 23, 2006

Dear Frank

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

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

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

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

Best regards,

John



Buck Lindsay

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

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

2. What are RAG relationship to clubs and districts?

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

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

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

4. Cost to RI of administering RAG?

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

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

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


Buck Lindsay


RIDE Monty Audenart
Dear Rotarian Action Group Leaders:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rotary Volunteers:

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

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

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




PDG Marco Kappenberger

Dear John


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

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

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

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

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


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

Marco Kappenberger

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


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

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

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

Marco

Marco Kappenberger

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

Dear Amigo Frank,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your amigo in the Pacific,

Marco Kappenberger


Bill Cadwallader, PRID

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Cadwallader, PRID



Matts Ingemanson

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

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

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

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

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

Yours in Rotary Service,

Matts Ingemanson



PDG Paul Beaulieu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards

Paul Beaulieu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours in Rotary service,

Will
Will Files
World Health Fair Program
Homer, Alaska USA

Dear John:

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

Your Amigo in Mexico City,

Frank Devlyn

(in resonse to the following)

Dear Matts.

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

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

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

Thanks for the comments.
Best wishes,

John


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

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

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

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

Present:

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


Regrets:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Item:

The following topics were discussed:

• Reviewed Code of Policy issues

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

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

• Structure of RAGs comparisons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best wishes were expressed by all.


Ron Denham

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

2) They have no authority to support long-term initiatives:- despite our ability to generate much interest and enthusiasm Rotarians have no assurance of continued interest or support. Consequently they are unwilling to initiate truly significant programmes. We remain
short-term, project-focused with few exceptions (which exceptions I am encouraging e.g. Nakuru (20 RCCs working to bring safe water to 1.2 million people), or PRID Sushil's program in Churu.

3) People are appointed to resource groups who may have no interest in the subject but accept the invitation solely to raise their political profile in Rotary.

4) Major NGOs and agencies e.g. Unicef, UNESCO, WaterAid, etc look to Rotary for leadership at the grass-roots level. At present it is difficult for a resource to make any commitment except promising to communicate and encouraging. We risk becoming marginalized in the major
humanitarian issues of the day.




Marco Kappenberger

Some comments about Rotarian Action Groups :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Marco Kappenberger
Chair – Environment Fellowship


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

Registered Rotary Service Affiliates Responses

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

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

Dear Mark

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

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

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

Respectfully submitted

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



Bill Rowlings and PP Kris Klugman, Australia

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

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

Dear John

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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


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

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

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

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

RE Australia, and similar situations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We propose that Australia has:

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

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

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

We envisage two direct outcomes;

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

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

(signed)

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

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

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


John Hemmant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John


Sharon Cyr, Manager, RI Programs Division

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

Dear Director Eberhard:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Tin Tin Raschid

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

Thanks to RID John for his proposal.

Here are my queries:

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

2. Where does the Medical Fellowships" fit in?

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

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

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

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

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



PDG Ray Taylor

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


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

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

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

1. The proposal speaks to a marketing need and responds to the dictum: “See the need” “Fill the need”. (See page 9, second paragraph under “The Results”)
2. Fellowships in their current definition respond to the First, Third and Fourth “Object of Rotary”: “…acquaintance as an opportunity for service”; “…the application of the ideal of service in each Rotarian’s personal…life”; “…The advancement of international understanding, goodwill, and peace through a world fellowship…united in the ideal of service”.
3. They meet the elements of the 4-Way Test.
4. The issue before the RI BdDir may be to reexamine our product and our method of delivery.
5. Based upon the assumption that our product is SERVICE (at least for the past 80 years) it is reasonable to assume that our method of delivery of this service should be examined to be sure we had adopted a viable and effective method.
6. The RRSA proposal is recognition that today’s market offers opportunities to utilize the time and talent of Rotarians who have special interests in special needs.
7. The establishment and operation of the Fellowships website www.rotaryfellowships.org is an example of a grass roots recognition of a “need” and the way to fill it. This was done and is operated at no cost to Rotary.
8.