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

[Edoardo Neerhut]

I think that's an excellent idea Elisa. You're full of them recently :D
The figure seems reasonable to me and I like the idea of keeping the funds
local. This makes sense when the amount is low enough that international
transfers would be cost prohibitive.

On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 at 21:56, eli <elipuccioni at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks so much everybody, and Greg please keep raising these questions,
> I'm learning a lot from them and I value your experienced opinion on OSGeo
> procedures.
>
> I totally agree, I should have asked for more detailed information  for
> the grants that require money in advance, I'm sorry about that and I'll
> make sure it won't happen again. I'm going to contact Lani and ask for a
> more detailed quote, even if I will assure her that the grant is approved
> and will specify with her what we require if they underspend (i.e. giving
> the money in excess to a local charity chosen by us if under $200 AUD,
> sending back the money to OSGeo if the money in excess are more than $200
> AUD). I've chosen the $200 AUD mark as it's roughly a fifth of the required
> budget, but happy to hear your suggestions on this too.
>
> Regarding the conflict of interest, in this case we had two members of the
> group directly involved in the event (Carrol and Nemaia) and both
> restrained from voting. As we still had 3 voting members and all 3 approved
> the grant, it passed on as the majority of the group did vote yes. If we
> didn't have the majority of the votes we would have asked the Board to
> intervene and decide if approving or not the grant. I will make sure to
> write down all of this in the procedures!
>
> Cheers,
> Elisa
>
> Il giorno mar 2 nov 2021 alle ore 17:09 Edoardo Neerhut <
> eneerhut at gmail.com> ha scritto:
>
>> Thanks for the civil discussion everyone. Great points all around and I
>> think we're mostly aligned.
>>
>> *Fiji approval*
>> If my approval is needed, I approve in this case to ensure Fiji can put
>> together the breakfast/dinner next week. Elisa, can you give them written
>> approval so they are confident the money will be there and they can put the
>> event on?
>>
>> *My concerns*
>>
>>    1. The request for funds was a guesstimate. We need better than this
>>    in future. We should have a venue and reference to prices that can be
>>    compared to the cost per head estimate.
>>    2. What happens if the dinner has half the number of attendees, gets
>>    cancelled, or just doesn't cost as much as estimated? What happens to that
>>    money? These are rather likely scenarios so I think we need a disclaimer
>>    that outlines what happens in the result of underspending while also
>>    stating that OSGeo Oceania is contributing the requested amount only in the
>>    case of overspend.
>>
>> *Approvals going forward*
>> I don't think I should be the one reviewing/approving. In future I would
>> like to see the board set a budget for the Microgants Committee and let the
>> committee operate that fund with the transparency Greg mentioned. I thought
>> this was the financial process already, but I agree more info and access on
>> Loomio is better so that the board can step in for fiduciary reasons.
>> Hopefully rarely.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 at 20:51, Greg Lauer <gregory.lauer at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>    1. 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.
>>>    2. I don't have concerns with this currently, but the clearer we can
>>>    make this each cycle, the better.
>>>    3. 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
>>>    4. 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> 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)
>>>> 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).
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>
>>> [image: 1437aeb9-d14f-4bb4-a6e4-1c717c34170d]
>>
>>
>
> --
> Potrebbe andar peggio...potrebbe piovere!
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania-board/attachments/20211101/81d66694/attachment-0001.html>