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

[eli]

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/oceania-board/attachments/20211029/5e220707/attachment.html>