BB Annual meeting Subject: Create a fund to spread Reflection Circles (RC) and Open Space (OS)
Participants: Manno, Fremy, David, John, Coleen (yon ti pati)
Our Goal :
Spread the practice of RC and OS
Our objectives :
1. Nourish the networks of RC and OS practitioners in two ways:
Foster practitioners discovering more experience so that they can become more effective. Help ensure that more and more people are developing the practice of RC and OE.
2. Create a need among groups/institutions/schools for RC and OS and offer a way to satisfy the need.
Questions:
1. How will it be administered?
Money Decisions Evaluation
2. What will we name the project (English/Creole?) ?
3. What might be the role of Limye Lavi? (fiscal agent as it was with IJR?)
Structure:
For making decisions:
We would create a body called something like Gwoupsala. People in the group would meet the criteria below (1,2, and 3 and/or 4):
1. S/he wants to be a part of the group and will invest time and energy in helping to make it effective. 2. S/he has a history with OS and RC. 3. S/he is actively engaged in fundraising for the fund which means s/he has regular contact with funders. 4. S/he is on the ground and is available to visit the institution being granted resources for training and to write a report based on the visit which would be made available for Gwoupsala.
People proposed for Gwoupsala : Kristy, Fremy, Chris Low, Coleen, Eddy, David, John, Steven, Erik.
The process for adding members to Gwoupsala : one of the Gwoupsala members would propose someone new who met the critera for membership ( #1,2, and 3 and/or 4). Assuming other Gwoupsala members did not object, the new person would become a member.
Functioning : We would use wiki to maintain contact and keep information available. Perhaps we would have periodical conference calls.
A scenario for how the fund would work in the field:
1. Organization leader(s) interested: The leaders in a school/institution/group have heard about RC and OS and wish to learn more or perhaps they are already ready to take the steps to have their members trained. (Perhaps leader(s) heard about RC and OS by a practitioner who spoke with them or showed them the video or invited them to a meeting. Etc.
2. Organization leader(s) write a proposal or complete an application: Leadership would work with a practitioner to either write a proposal of complete an application, whichever we decide to do/call it, to request a grant which would enable them to pay a practitioner for training and pay for other associated expenses.
3. Gwoupsala approves the application and invites leadership and practitioner to develop an accord: Once Gwoupsala receives and approves the accord between the practitioner and the institution (the application has already been approved) a grant would be made available according to the application/proposal.
4. Visit and report: The member of Gwoupsala who is in the field and who approved the proposal/application and accord, will visit the institution where training is going on and have a conversation with the leadership and members being trained. Then s/he would write a report and put it on wiki.
Gwoupsala’s decision-making process:
Once people who fit the description below would approve the application/proposal and the accord, it would be approved by Gwoupsala:
1. A person in the field who would commit to doing the visit and the report. 2. A person who is actively engaged in fundraising for the fund or, perhaps the specific person who is the liaison between the fund and the institution or individual making a grant to the fund. 3. Another person in Gwoupsala which is simply a third member in the decision-making process. 4. The practitioner – While the practitioner will not be a member of Gwoupsala, s/he will be a implicated in the process and has already approved the institution because of having developed an accord with leadership.
Distribution of stipends and grants:
There are a number of ways that we can envision for the institution to receive the funds. For example, the approach that we prefer for now, is that LL would serve as the fiscal agent (not involved in decision-making process regarding who the fund is being granted to, but responsible for distribution of funds to grantee institution and payment of stipend to practitioner). Once Gwoupsala approves an application and accord, BB (or perhaps another institution which prefers that the money go directly to Haiti) sends the money to LL in the name of the institution which has been approved. Each time that the practitioner provides training, someone in leaderships signs a voucher. Every 15 days or perhaps a month, the practitioner submits a requisition with signatures of leadership to LL and receives his/her stipend for services/training s/he is providing the grantee institution.
Typical training scheme:
While we like the idea that training programs could have a variety of approaches, which would be customized to meet needs of institution and is adapted to leadership interest and situation, we would use as a guide the types of training programs that practitioners have already been providing:
1. A weekly RC session lasting about 2 hours during 3-6 months 2. two or three OS meetings during the training which would have themes based on what members receiving training decided upon in consultation with leadership and practitioner.
Name of this project or fund: We believe it is important to find the perspective of people in the field regarding a name for this fund/project. John would like to propose for consideration: Fon Eksperyans la (Creole) and The Experiment Fund
Practitioners eligible to participate: This is an important question which has yet to be addressed: How will we determine which practitioners are eligible to submit proposals and accords in cooperation with institutions interested in training.
AtelyeKreyeFonReyinyonAnyelBB2003