Proposal #7: 2 x IO
I propose to split the IO into two separate offices. One office would stay in Newcastle with one administrative staff and one assistant. In this office pure Programme administration would be handled, including the use of electronic software.
A second office would be opened in a relevant city (Brussels, New York, Paris, etc.), with one project coordinator, internships and project managers who pay their salary with the grant they get. This office would only be concerned with project coordination, fundraising, lobbying, organisational development and external relations.
Rational
One full-time professional and an assistant can handle the pure programme administration of CISV if relevant software is used and professionally handled. The tasks that need more time, manpower and resources are the projects related tasks and well as fundraising and
innovation. But not only this. The possibility to meet relevant people is crucial, to be able to attend meetings and conferences, consultation and networking meetings. For this it is necessary to have an office at a place where these things happen. Newcastle is not one of those places. In the coming years a number of IO staff will retire, so this chance must be taken to move on. Examples of other organisations show, that employees can financially self-support themselves with the funds they find for projects. This would also be a great opportunity for young CISVers who just finished University to start a proffesional career that is both interesting, challenging and in a great city.
Bastian (GER)
14 Comments:
I agree very much with this proposal. There is no doubt that CISV should move towards this direction...
One question: What would the budget impact of such a change? I don't mention this as an obstacle, but as relevant information for the planning of this thing.
How long would it take to have the 2 offices fully working? 2? 4? 6 years?
Any thoughts?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I think the budget impact would be there but not huge. If we reduce the number of people working in Newcastle (due to retirement) it might work out fine. Of course opening a new office in a representative city would bring with it an one-time investment in furniture, computers and office material (which can be partly leased). The office doesn't need to be big. I think in 2-4 years this would be possible.
very much in favor of it.
I think there are many excellent arguements to be made for moving the International Office out of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. A number of them have been outlined in this proposal. But if this were to be planned in anticipation of IO staff retirement, wouldn't it make sense to move the entire office to a new location? Why carry the overhead costs (rent, utilities, communications, etc) of two offices?
good point anonymous! maybe it would be more difficult to push this through in the board. If fist one part of the office is moved and then another one (remember the good relations to the University of Newcastle that we have), it might be an easyer transition.
As far as my memory can recall these type of proposals were always turned down due to supposed budget impact causes.... but we actually never had the numbers.
SG position will be changing too very soon and it is not that easy to aim for the best candidates when moving to Newcastle is part of the requirements.
I like the idea of deepening into this idea from a serious perspective.
My understanding is that the IO is in Newcastle because of tax and insurance readings. So, I think the 2 office structure would work beautifully
I say put it all in either London, New York or San Jose, Costa Rica. Then we can get a move on...
I like the idea even though I'm not sure CISV is "ready" to think about it, in terms of priority. More important things should come first (strategic planning...).
This idea might come back in 5-10 years I think, and then it will also be relevant to think about cities where many other organisations are... Good for networking, lobbying...
New York with the UN,
Paris with Unesco,
Geneva with many NGOs...
San Jose with... Sun !!!
I must admit I have always been curious about the IO in Newcastle. Especially when I was a kid and wondered why would Doris put the Office of the organisation she created far from Cincinatti?
Apart from that childish question some points should be taken into consideration:
-If you were applying to be CISV Secretary General, and you see the position as –amongst many other things- a trampoline to future employments in other (bigger? more formal?) LMOs your networking possibilities could be limited to the “We Love Newcastle Foundation� and not many more. This is also applicable to future students and interns that could see the IO as their first big step within an organisation they are very familiar with.
-Firing people is never a good thing. We should take the chance of people retiring to make the move. Emotional comment: I love you Joyce!!
-I agree with the “progressive translation� to a new city. If it wasn’t for us being in Newcastle we might have never got to the rebranding without investing incredible amounts of money. CISV is not “world-known� enough to get grants or KTPs from many; that is, incidentally the reason we need to move out.
-We would eliminate the excuse of using British Pounds for so many things (I will never be able to “think� in Pounds…) just because the IO is in the GB.
-Europe is “Grant Land� for us Americans (people who live in the continent AMERICA), the IO staying in Europe should be considered as a top-option.
-Counterargument: Costa Rica is a small, tropical paradise with great people and good CISV friends (and there is no army).
-If there has never been a “serious� approach to this idea (even if these arguments could be seen as if it is not); then there is no more time to waste. Let's see some figures and options...
PS. CISV is very much related to Procter & Gamble (history and people wise) and their offices are also in Newcastle (maybe that was the first reason Doris had). Could we "exploit" that link?
Two comments:
1) Some of the main "NGO-cities", such as Paris, Bruxelles or Geneva are extremely expensive in terms of renting an office and housing. Even if GB is an expensive place, IO costs may go up in this case.
2) I'm unsure if the trustees of CISV international would dare to take such a huge, risky, cost-intensive step. A different, and maybe more realistic approach would be, if maybe the European NAs would decide to set up an "European Office" in one of the cities mentioned above, focussing on grant-writing, NGO-interaction and lobbying. Employing one staff and 3 interns could do a lot of work there. Once this first step is taken, maybe CISV international would be more likely to adopt this European office...
Answering Nano's childish question...Why New Castel?
It was there because at the beginning the Seg. Gen was a CISVer and CISV didn't have an office. So the office was moved every time to the city of the S.G. The last SG before Gaby was a CISVer from NC, so the Office was opened there, and then CISV decided to keep it there for economic reason.
In fact the IO is right now in a charity building done for NGOs so they pay a really cheap renting. More then this England has a regulation in favor of NGOs that reduce our cost as organization.
I totally agree with Nick, I think the trustee wouldn’t take the responsibility of opening a new office, especially if they don’t have a concrete prove of the benefit. But I would say that the European countries should take this responsibility, so that once showed evidence of good result trustees can decide to move the office there. I personally wouldn’t suggest for CISV two office, especially because of the economical crisis we had the last year.
A small suggestion to make our life easier it would be to have our account in an european bank, and have our fees in euros; so the countries with different currency other then EUR or USD don't have to sustain the cost of a double fluctuation of exchange rates.
Agree. But, also, move the administrative-IO to i.e. Bombay - extremely skilled workers and low costs.
If done correctly, in the long run, I see that this change would cut costs rather than add costs.
Plus, an development-IO in a "world capital" would attract more people to apply for jobs or internships at the development-IO.
Post a Comment
<< Home