[Oceania-Board] Microgrants and Good Mojo procedures and questions

Mon Nov 1 20:51:55 PDT 2021

Thanks Eli for the very comprehensive email outlining your thoughts. To be transparent I questioned Eli on a transfer and this is were this email derived from. The key issue was being asked to send $900 overseas to a Western Union account with out any supporting documentation (who, what were etc.). The issue was not about the committees decision to make and/or authorize a grant.

In answering Eli's questions:

1. I am in complete agreement that the board should not interfere on the day to day running of committee(s). As per Ed's comments, in my mind it more about transparency, and Board members have a fiduciary duty to manage funds. With the Microgrant fund this was (initially) easily done by board members having read only access to Loomino (not sure why this stopped) With other grants there doesn't seem to be a transparent process to follow. I should add, in my mind, the Board have the right to 'Audit' decisions at any stage (although in reality this should be very rare).

2. Again to be clear the board should not be involved in the decision making at a committee level. The only area that should have some Board over-site is Conflict of Interest (and this been raised before) and general understanding of processes. I my mind, again , this is about transparency. 

3. I will split this into two. 

In terms of "guarantee do we have that the money is spent on what it was originally agreed to", with post payment this is reasonably easy to manage. With pre-payment I think we need to set the expectations clearly with the grantee, in writing (form letter) and acknowledged, of the obligations.I am not so worried about Microgrants but but believe larger grants require extra steps.

In most cases we reimburse grantees based on pre-approved submission of receipts or similar. This is a simple and very easy way to manage and very transparent and ensured that the monies was spent as  There has been (and will continue to be) cases were this is not practical and we will need to send monies in advance. I am very confident this can be managed transparently but in my mind requires a couple of extra steps (for example a simple agreement signed by the grantee acknowledging the terms of the grant etc). 

4. I have answered above - there will always be cases to make money available in advance, and we should support that, with appropriate safeguards

To be very clear this is not aimed at Eli or the grants team at all - 110% supportive of the work they are doing. If anything this is a bit of a swing back at the board (myself included) in that we need to provide better support to the committees so they can spend money on these types of things and have clear guidelines in place. It is not fair for Eli to have to try and navigate this without board support.

In terms of the outstanding grant to Suva we need to resolve this reasonably quickly. If Eli and he team have approved this we need to make it available. For me a very brief email with the grantee, purpose of funds ('Lunch for Suva Hub'), some very basic accounting/proposed line items  (30 x lunch @ $10 etc) would suffice. If it is a there is a potential conflict of interest (i.e Board member, contractor, friend etc) then a very short statement how this was mitigated.  Although I would feel more conformable with a written acknowledgement from the grantee, I accept that we are running out of time here.

Greg
On 2/11/2021 9:14:57 AM, Edoardo Neerhut <eneerhut at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Elisa,

Thanks for following up with a board email on this topic. Here are my 2 cents on each topic.
* I agree with Elisa that the board should not weigh on each application. That shows a lack of trust in the committee and I don't want that to be the case. It'd be great if this information is available to the board for fiduciary reasons via Loomio or elsewhere, without the board needing to chime in.
* I don't have concerns with this currently, but the clearer we can make this each cycle, the better.
* For additional context, Greg raised a valid point about whether it is acceptable to send money without a clear idea of where it is going. We should focus on what the "clear idea" part here means and incorporate it into policies for both Good Mojo and Microgrants. Specific policy changes we could might make for funding in advance include:
* A detailed quote from the good or service provider that(s) that breaks down the projected cost
* A contingency plan if the quote diverges from actuals
* Receipt to be provided within x number of days after the event
* Case by case. We know money in advance is particularly important for the Pacific. If we set a cap on advanced fundings, we're effectively discriminating on the funds they have access to. Instead we should have stricter controls on what a valid request is (see point 3 above).
On currently pending applications, don't be afraid to ask for more information to solidify the application. If we can do this quickly, we can ensure everyone gets the money they need before the conference next week (ahhh it's next week!!!).

Cheers,

Ed

On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 19:08, eli <elipuccioni at gmail.com [mailto:elipuccioni at gmail.com]> wrote:

Hi all!
As we are in full swing with both microgrants and Good Mojo applications, I had a few important issues brought to my attention and I’d like to discuss them with all of you before carrying on with the grant group jobs.
The main concerns are rotating around how we approve a microgrant and a GM request, the way we have decided to send funding (that’s especially for GM), and the way I have communicated them to the board. More specifically these questions have been raised:
1.      Original application - what is money being spent on? Can the board have access to the full application?
2.      How and why the application has been approved, and if there were any conflicts of interest, how they have been managed
3.      What guarantee do we have that the money is spent on what it was originally agreed to?
4.      Why does the money need to be paid in advance? (that’s referring to Good Mojo only). Should we fix a threshold of $500 to send money in advance or not?
I haven’t yet consulted all the rest of the Grant group people about these issues, but I’m sure they will be happy to step in the conversation if needed. I’d like to write down my point of view about the questions raised, but I’m really happy to get all the feedback and advice possible, as I feel that can lead to a better and faster process to grant funding to the community.
Regarding the first question: up to this moment the grant group discusses the applications via email and Loomio and I have only reported the results to the board during board meetings. I’m more than happy to open the Loomio discussion threads to all the board to read, but I might ask, if possible, not to intervene in the discussion directly and contact me for any issues, ideas or feedback. I feel if we need to wait for the input of other 6-7 people that could considerably delay the process. But happy to discuss it! Also, if any other person would love to join the grant group and be actively involved in the discussion and voting, you’re all welcome (board members and community members alike!). I will try to cut the communications via email about the applications and put everything on Loomio. Sometimes it has been faster just to forward the applications directly to the rest of the group instead of copying and pasting it to Loomio, especially for the four GM requests we’ve received, as they don’t have an application form but are sent directly to the grants email. But I have of course all the emails saved; in case the board wants to read them (respecting of course the privacy of the people involved).
Regarding n.2. we do have a guideline here in the Microgrant document (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QqVd5LT4l6cwr5WZXYV1AX8X09T48irv/edit [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QqVd5LT4l6cwr5WZXYV1AX8X09T48irv/edit]) and we have followed it. It addresses both how to approve an application and what we do in case of conflict of interest. The GM funding purpose is explained, not yet completely, in this document (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F0hgEyBPJ2EL0jZtqn0Av88Zmg6eTS7mUCEdEALujOg/edit#heading=h.95t0ev3wjads [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F0hgEyBPJ2EL0jZtqn0Av88Zmg6eTS7mUCEdEALujOg/edit#heading=h.95t0ev3wjads]). We have not created yet a complete guideline for the GM as we’re still in the process to reorganise it to fit the new post covid reality and we’ve decided to adapt the microgrant process to fit the GM requests of this year. I expect it will be quite different from next year on (or at least I hope), maybe including more events/activities in its scope, but for 2021 the GM funding is still closely linked to the conference and has been sent or will be sent to hub coordinators only. I do agree we should have written down a more comprehensive document and I apologise for that, but in all honesty, we haven’t had time. I will fill this gap asap after the conference, as I will need to organise another meeting with the rest of the group to put them down together and it’s not possible now. In order to build back the board's confidence in our process, I’ll happily explain all the steps we have taken to approve three out of four requests for this year.
I think questions 3 and 4 are both referring to the Good Mojo requests, as it’s very rare that we send microgrants in advance (it has happened only once, I think, just at the beginning of the programme). I’d like to point out that for us the GM requests are different from the microgrants: they are used by the hub coordinators to deliver initiatives related to inclusion, diversity, and sustainability. The hubs are part of that, they're not outsiders asking for money to deliver their own programs. We of course request receipts to be sent after the event is completed and we have a small system in place in case not all the money is spent. In case just a small amount of money is left, we will ask the organiser to donate them to a local charity of our choosing, in case the amount is big, we will request a transfer back. I realise that this system is based on trust, and I appreciate that not all the board members will feel confident with it. We’ve put it in place especially for the GM applications made by the hub organisers, as they are active members of the community who we often know and have been working with. We feel they are entitled to be trusted, and maybe receiving the funding in advance can help them organise a better conference or reduce the stress. Of course, I think it’s important to discuss this part with the rest of the board in case you don’t share the same perspective.
One last note on it, following the above principles we have already sent GM funding to Kiribati, but we’re holding the funding for Suva. Kiribati request was quite smaller than Suva, and below $500 AUD, so it has been suggested to put $500 as threshold on the amount of money to be sent in advance at this stage, till at least we have all the guidelines written and approved. I think that could be a good idea to discuss together, even if personally I’m not convinced that it’s completely fair. I think that if a GM application is solid and approved, it should get the funding in advance even if above the $500 AUD. The GM funding itself is rarely above the $1000 mark anyway (well, at least it hasn’t been for this year!) and right now we only have 2 requests of funding in advance, one already paid. So I’d say let’s go ahead with Suva too, and then maybe change the procedure, if needed, from next round?
Thanks all for reading this long email, I’m really looking forward to your feedback and suggestions!

Cheers,
Elisa

_______________________________________________
Oceania-Board mailing list
Oceania-Board at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:Oceania-Board at lists.osgeo.org]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania-board [https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania-board]

_______________________________________________ Oceania-Board mailing list Oceania-Board at lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/oceania-board
[9afd8fa0-508e-4549-8113-c065ec032e51]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania-board/attachments/20211102/dc3ae9d4/attachment-0001.html>