Board of Micromanagers.

| 3 Comments | No TrackBacks
Mtn03-AIM10-BRA

CISV Brazil moves to get more detailed information from the international committees on their budget items.

This is, in my eyes, a typical example of the international board of trustees taking themselves too seriously. Of course, as a democratic organization, we need a board of trustees that approves motions, personal and a budget. But the true hard-working people in the international level are in the committees, I believe. Trustees merely meet once a year for 5 days to take a peak through the key-hole on what's been happening around the CISV world. So, please, show a bit more humility.

What CISV Brazil wants is called micromanagement. Why not instead move into the opposite direction, and grant every committee a fixed amount of money and give them the trust and flexibility to spend it well. Spending should be monitored by, lets say an IEC liason, but flexibility is the key: Things change so fast in CISV, and I've often been annoyed, how difficult it was to re-allocate funds in the approved budget during the year.

The one true point that this motion has, that the budget session takes so long, would also be solved with my suggestion.

Oh, and since I've started ranting about the trustees - CISV would benefit even more, if less time at AIM was spent on board sessions. What a waste of time any money. If only the board of trustees could see their limited efficiency.

Disclaimer: I've spent 6 years on the IPP taskforce, and never been a trustee myself. So there may be some bias in this post. But, what did you expect?

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://www.absolutpicknick.de/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/234

3 Comments

I completely agree with you that the plenary sessions are a complete waste of time and energy by not only the trustees but the observers as well. At any given time, the US had at least one other person in the plenary session to help the trustee/answer questions if needed.

Why not offer "office hours" during some point at AIM for trustees to check in and ask specific questions of committees and their plans/budget? I know this has been done in the past, but I don't know to what effect.

Did you see/fill out the survey about AIM, Nick? I'd make your displeasure known there as well. I did.

As much as I like flexibility on committee expenses, because all reasons pointed out by Nick, I think the point here is at least to report the detail of the expenses made, which is reasonable. Also I think should not take too much time to make a detailed budget because I assume committee should have the information anyway.

So flexibility is good going forward but detailed reporting is good looking backward :)

Detailed reporting is good looking forward as well.

I have a grant proposal in to the US government for a research project for my Master's degree. If CISV wants to become a serious grant-recieving organization, these "open budgets" aren't going to cut it with grantmaking organizations.

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick published on July 18, 2010 8:31 PM.

Editorial Note. was the previous entry in this blog.

New research on CISV. is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.