Proposal #29: A World of Chapters.
I propose that CISV takes away the National Assosiations as the basic organizing units in its international democratic and administrative routines. I further propose that it is representatives of the Chapters that i.e. vote at an AIM, and that any Chapter is free to join any cluster for cooperation, i.e. regional, virtual and/or by interest.
Rationale
CISV International consists of app. 60 NAs (National Assosiations) or app. 200 Local Chapters. Since national borders are made up by coincidents in history they have no relevance to anything but administrative and legal routines. Further, since CISV wants to break barriers and cross borders we should not organize ourselves along the same lines as we try to overcome.
Respectfully submitted, Adam (SWE)
{Main decisions of CISV international are taken at the Annual International Meeting (AIM), where the trustees (representatives of NAs) meet. Huge countries like the USA (20 chapters) vote with one voice similar to small chapters like Luxembourg (1 chapter). To be recognized as an official National Association, among other issues, a country must host ALL programmes and have an active junior branch. }
19 Comments:
Might work, sounds really interesting.
i agree with this in principle, meaning that if we are trying to overcome nationalism, there is no purpose to promoting it within our own organization's administrative structure.
Why not take it a step further though...
if the voting system as it stands were to be changed to provide for a representative from each chapter to vote, it is most likely that this will be done online as the funding for all of those attendees at the AIM would be more than the Ease Fund 100 (or any other funding source) could handle.
My point: why even have chapter representatives? why would we not simply have EACH MEMBER vote on international, national and local decisions?
the argument that geographic boundaries for NAs are restrictive (in terms of both voting and cooperating abilities) is just as applicable to chapter entities.
Furthermore, there are members and alumni all around the world who could be meaningfully contribute to the organization on both a local and international level, and have the unfortunate situation of no longer belonging to a chapter-- this could include them!
I think this proposal could be changed to a WORLD OF CISVERS and that ANYONE be free to vote at the AIM and join in any form or cluster of cooperation.
idea is good. but remember about the trade off between democracy and efficiency. i cannot foresee all chapters participating to CISV int decision making.
Some twisting has to be done to make the proposal practical.
I really like the idea of changing CISVs core unit from NA to chapter for the following reasons:
1. The general idea of a "borderless world" - instead of supporting the system of a "more or less randomly divided" world, CISV takes the next step.
2. A chapter would be viewed as a "structural unit" as opposed to a "cultural unit". This way we would get rid of the misunderstanding that classifying CISV organisations by countries is identical with cultures/nations.
3. A chapter in this new understanding would also reach out across the boarder (Like the chapter Lörrach in Germany close to Switzerland is already doing)
4. This cuts out the superfluous level of NAs in our structure: CISV international would then communicate directly with the chapters (as it does these days in single-chapter NAs) and chapters could directly take part in international decision making. It also puts away with the problem of NAs being very different in size.
5. I also think that when inviting delegations to camps, there shouldn't be a problem with inviting two chapters from the same country.
6. The way Adam outlines this idea, there is still room for NAs or Regions as "clusters of interest".
7. I also think there are several easy solutions to Teo's problem of efficiancy:
a) Shift the focus from the international board to a (larger) executive board, that handles most decisions, while a international board of "chapter trustees" would only meet once every three years for elections and long-term planning.
b. Chapters could pass their vote on to somebody from another chapter nearby as a Proxy, limiting it to a max of something like 5 proxies. That leaves us with 40 individuals in the room.
8. With a propper "Category System" of chapters (something like "Full chapter", "Small Chapter", "Developing Chapter") we could also draw a better picture of the CISV world and plan development.
As you can see from my long comment, I'm very excited about this idea. It has been around for a while, but the more I think of it, the more I like it, and believe that this could really change CISV philosophically and structurally.
I definitely like the idea and the way of thinking, especially Nick's 8th argument is a very strong one-
Just that I'm with Teo when it comes to imagining the efficiency this system would work with- I'm doubting that communication problems would be easier solved this way...
nick gave some good solutions...
could be worthy to try.
my only dubts is about how those executives could work given the fact there is no much continuity of support to their operate...
another interesting thoughts is about the "interest clustering". we should be willing to leave chapter to cluster themselves as they want, how many times they like, on the lines of what ijb has done with their cooperation guidelines.
at this point a good transition phase has to be designed, because i don't believe into revolution from one day to the other
Hello!
I also like the idea, even though I see it as a bit more logistically difficult maybe. First what I like: The increase of democracy. Local chapters could voice out and if they feel like, send their own representative to AIM. I still belive in the face-to-face meetings as an important place to make decisions. I don't agree with Miss Kelly Lynn B that direct online voting my all CISVers individually would help as this would mean that those, happy to use the interent and fluent in english would only make the dicisions. This is where I come to my criticism. At least it Germany most people who work on a chapter-level are not very good in english. It's OK to host Kids prior to Camp, etc. but to read difficult documents, be informed about what's been going on in the last years and haveing the time and so on to read all that, I think it's unlikely that the quality of decisions will be increased by this. I think we shouldn't forget that not all a) work as much for CISV as those who post on Devils do and b) speak english as well. The idea of direct democracy of chapters being represented in CISV Int. is good, but there has to be a support mechanism that ensures that decisions are taken on an informed basis.
Also this would obviously mean that current NAs with a lot of chapters will have an increase of influence and power. It is not completely unlikely that Chapters will group together in language-clusters, which obviously will in many cases be country boundaries.
So far my few cents... All the best
Its an interesting one! Some of the people's comments have really taken me across to the 'for' side but I still have some doubts.
I agree with Teo's point of efficiency, and then what Basti went on to say about face-to-face meetings. I'm not entirely sure what I think about the concept of AIM, but what I have found from my experience is that there are many positive effects which wouldnt happen with the meeting being online.
I also thought Nicks's number 8 is a very valid point and even if this whole idea doesn't elevate it should be something propsed to ODC with regards to organisational development (thinking of chapters rather then NAs/PAs). With this in mind, I still agree with ODC's idea last year to have regions as support networks within CISV international. I'm not sure if these two ideas contradict themselves but I like them all the same
I'm a huuuuuge fan of the idea that we can erase the link between international-NA-chapter. In GB we have a massive gap where many people don't have a clue about the international side of CISV. With this in mind, I think GB would struggle with it (at least to start with) We are a small NA, made of 5 weak chapters and we can only just afford to pay for 1 trustee to go to AIM. I love the idea that 5 people would go, i just think it would be hard and we would still be sending just 1 per year
I like the ideas behind this proposal, and even more some of the comments which have come from it, I do believe that there will be quite a bit of resistance about it. Lets remember the people who have so far contributed are from multi-chapter Nas. I’m not sure what it feels like to be a small or developing NA/PA in AIM (and CISV international as a whole) or to be from one of the smaller ‘regions’ but I think that if this idea was introduced many smaller Nas would feel more ‘out of it’. Lets face it Scandanavia/ Nordic would create 50/60 out of 200 chapters, and USA+Canada another 30. I think we would be adding to what is already an over-westernised organisation
I’m still a big fan of certain aspects being used for organisational development purposes.
It’s a nice idea- I’m looking forward to seeing some points extracted from this and applied
I love the idea of having this direct link between Cisv Int. and Chapters. I have no doubt that this structure makes sense in a organization where, for example, cisv são paulo is much more similar to cisv Copenhagen, than to cisv rio de janeiro.
At least for me is very clear that we have to go toward this direction.
(it is amazing the way adam “pushes” us to think outside the box proposing ideas completely different from the common sense)
So, knowing a little from the author of the proposal, (adam, correct me if I’m wrong) there are two main issues behind this idea:
- regional structure
- IO efficiency
First: if we all think the chapter is the core of the organization we must stop thinking in simple and obvious geographical division and think more about the so called "clusters of interest";
Second: from my personal experience in cisv brazil - where we run 10 different chapters - the problem dealing with chapters isn't just representation, isn't just taking decisions. actually this is the easy part of the job. The main difficult is to level our organizational concepts, process and practices throughout all different chapters, each one with unique backgrounds. If the IO isn't ready today - that we have liasons, regions and na's - to guarantee educational quality and organizational efficiency, imagine if the io suddenly has to deal with 200 different chapters boards at the same time?
What I mean is that if the organization wants to move toward a more decentralized and chapter oriented organization we must start now to review the way we are imposing the regional structure to the organization and also face the fact that the Io as it is structured today it is not able to handle the challenges that CISV will have to deal to keep surviving in the near future.
Just to be extra clear:
The purpose of my proposal was meant as topic for discussion and an eye opener. How, when and if it can be implemented in a organisation as CISV was, nor is, a concern for me when I'm a devil.
Practicalities, reality and everyday routines is exactly what I want to escape for the few moments every now and then that I visit Devils.
And now my comments to the comments:
Thanks all for using your experience and imagination to futher develop mt food for thoughts. I agree with all of Nicks 8 points, and think number 7 is a key for development.
I do not agree with the idea of "a member - a vote", representation is important for democrazy, efficiency and specialization. I also agree that face-to-face is a very important aspect of running an organisation and virtual oppertunities should be seen as a compliment to this, not a challenge.
Nor do I like revolutions, but if i can choose, i'd prefer it over slow starvation any day. But change is a scary thing.
The language aspect that i brought up I see as a general CISV, or global, challenge. Meaning, this aspect is not limited to Chapter activists.
I do not see my proposal as something that will further strengthen already strong NAs. I belive that the result will be the opposite. Today, large or strong NAs, to quite a large extent control CISV Int. The proposed change would take that aspect away some and the focus of CISV Int. would be closer connected to where the actual CISV activities are carried out.
Personally I'm all pro all types of cooperation, and regionalisation could be one of them. However, I vision a global movement where cooperations are close out of intersest and not out of administrative rules.
As a trustee since 3 years of a large NA I have tried my best to develop many aspects of CISV (on all levels). The IO is one of these levels. I think its fair to say that neither i.e. CISV Sweden, the IPP programme, CISV São Paulo, Adam Axelsson or the IO functions to the maximum and that there will always be room for improvement.
// With great hopes that this discussion continues.
Adam
What comes to my mind while thinking about Adam´s last comment, about his idea and following all the others opinions, is this:
I imagine as a result of this idea, a CISV International without the political structure of our actual nations. Like Adam said, Chapters working as independent units, but united under the goals and Philosophy of CISV and The Education for Peace.
In that way we will have groups of people around the world getting together on a cross cultural way and having the posibilities to be active and creative on a local level based on their lives.
Our reality is to live in countries where migrations are one of the main subjects to discuss... what is the problem with this? That the classic geopolitical structures and social perceptions cannot fit with the fact that people share and build societes out of this imaginary/brickwalls borders.
I believe that we are far away to realize the power that we have as a Network of volunteers working for peace. We need to develop more and more and more this tool. To give the chance to fly away in imagination and ideas and at the end in local actions with global results for everyone. This is our "nation" our "flag", this NETWORK of brains working together with similar porpuses.
That is why I imagine Chapters sharing experiences with others, like this discussion. Aplying our cross cultural knowledge of the world. Then, we can have an IO helping us with the tipical, normal practical procedures and a brainy ODC/EDR taking care of our development under the postulates of peace education and the necesities of our ideas.
Hope this comment would add more ideas to this discussion...
Another reason why a "web" rather than a "pyramid" image would be useful is because it is, in my view, a more accurate representation of what we do have already, but it simply gives full value to those without titles as equal contributors.
Speaking purely normatively, rather than structurally, this would (I think) spread energy further because more people would realize (without having to first be involved in the national and then international level, as often happens here in the US) that they can have a very active role and be practically unknown to their NA. Realities show that having to pass through degrees of responsibility at the NA level in order to reach beyond your NA means that people filter out who would be useful.
Of course this plan would also leave huge transitions everywhere-including in mindset-but it could be an interesting process.
Looking at Adam's comment there, I would like to add a few general notes - a bit off topic, I'm sorry:
- Adam's perfectly right, when looking at the proposals found here, sometimes we shouldn't be too critical whether something is 100% practical, or whether the person submitting has gotten all the details right - let's try and take a step back and look at the general idea and notion of the proposals. To translate this motion, the question could be worded as: "Is there any need for NAs?"
- On the other hand, I also like the part of CISV Devils, where people have a good idea, but the details just won't work out.
In the end, I'd like to encourage everybody to do both: Take a bird-view AND a binocular look at the proposals posted here.
I like the part of cisv devils which i can see proposal and turn them into motions with few changes.
I prefer to exercise my brain in order to make something useful/practical, even if most of the time i'm happy as well to discuss abstract theories...
Hmmm...
I didn't have the patience to read all the comments (and see if I might repeat an opinion that has already been expressed or not), so maybe what I’d like to say has already been said. My bad...
But I wanted to comment on this topic ever since it has been posted. I believe it is an idealistic perspective as to where we are now. That’s why I’d like to do a reality check with you guys and see if I understood it right…
I believe that when you suggest having all chapters being represented in decision making at International level you leave something out. And that is the fact that in decision making ppl don't just vote, they also express their opinions.
And each opinion that is being expressed triggers other comments and also a lot of new ideas and ways of seeing things for other representatives. But a thing that in CISV happens a lot(and I might do it here also) is people repeating other people opinions just for the sake of saying something(very inefficient and tiring).
From this year’s experience (where I think the re-branding session-tag line discussion took about 4 hours?) I believe that having even more ppl in the plenary would make it difficult for everybody to express their ideas (without repeating themselves) in an efficient way. So in the end people just get down to voting because they are tired of debating or someone moves to end discussion, when the general feeling is that the discussion is not over yet.
Oh, and the plenary can also be an intimidating experience, so leaving aside the language problem, some people might have something to say but not be comfortable enough expressing it with so many people being present. Smaller groups are more comfortable (and are the essential of face-to-face discussions) ;)
Second you are talking about NAs and it is my understanding that you are leaving out the PAs(or maybe when u say NAs u mean both of them). So in the end they are still unable to vote, but can express their opinion in the meetings (this is a good thing).
How would that be solved? Or chapters from NAs will all have a voting right for the sake of democracy while PAs won't? I believe some PAs have more to say on a specific issue, than some fresh NAs at time, and would love to be able to vote on it - I know I would!
On the other hand, getting back to the rebranding issue, it was a very frustrating experience for me as I am not sure that everyone who was in the plenary had an opinion on this issue or cared as much, while other nations with no voting right(such as ours) couldn’t vote on it. Many of the new NAs just voted cause they had to. It didn’t feel like they realized the opportunity they had to be actually voting and possibly making a change…
I have wrote a lot, but in the end I'd like to say that we all [probably] know how tiring sessions in the plenary are(we had an activity where it turned out that some ppl just wanted less plenary time and more of other things), and being there longer doesn’t seam like a good idea and doubt that it might improve its efficiency.
Oh and since due to lack of time the discussion on a certain topic ends leaving people who wanted to say something out doesn’t improve the democracy of the system either(not to mention that just by taking into consideration Laura’s comment, only the Scandinavian chapters representatives would account for the number of people we were in the plenary this year, while from my own experience the representatives of Scandinavian nations have always a lot to say in regional and international meetings-which is not a bad thing) but would then leave everyone with talking just once(not productive).
The language barrier Basti was talking about doesn’t make it easy to represent at the international level, express an opinion, make urself understood or understand exactly what is being said.
That’s why I believe is it easier to have some sort of training at the national level beforehand and inform the chapter representatives about the issues CISV is dealing with and that would be addressed at the AIM. I think it is easier to express opinions efficiently (make sense and make a point) in one own’s language after all.
If we want every chapter to be able to be represented at the International level than we need a minimum standard of training, or information to be passed on to the representatives and make sure they are prepared for it. This might also mean have the discussions at the national level in English maybe to “help” juniors to express themselves easier in regional and international meetings, if they have to be present and represent their chapter(I think in Egypt they conduct the trainings in French for this reason).
Don’t get me wrong, I think the idea is good in principle but I don’t see how it can become a reality any time soon.
I will leave it here for now…
As I am still waiting to find out if I understood the issue correctly.
I did read all the comments now...
Don't mind too much my critical approach :D
Felt it should be expressed anyways;)
I will start out with quoting myself
"The purpose of my proposal was meant as topic for discussion and an eye opener. How, when and if it can be implemented in a organisation as CISV was, nor is, a concern for me when I'm a devil.
Practicalities, reality and everyday routines is exactly what I want to escape for the few moments every now and then that I visit Devils."
But Ioana brings up something very interesting - why can't PAs vote? what is the rational behind this?
I can never belive that it's because we think they don't understand. As Ioana says - they probobly do as much as any NA trustee.
And also, since growth is a very important goal for us - wouldn't it mke more sence if they, who are one of our most obvious potentials for growth - got to vote?
Are we too theoretical here ? Do we dream too much ?
Sure it would be a fantastic idea to focus more on the chapters, cuz in the end THEY organize camps, THEY find new people, THEY earn and spend money, whereas NAs themselves just coordonate them, maybe in a non very democratic way...
But NAs actually do way more! The fact is that we do live in different countries, sometimes randomly drawn, but with an history, a background, a system, a set of laws, a set of taxes...
The NAs are the body designed to deal with nation wide issues. Wether the chapter is big or small, there are a great number of topics that have to be solved nationally. Applying for grants, dealing with new laws and regulations,...
And do not forget the enormous advantages a small chapter has to be in the same structure as a larger one.
As pedro said, if we looked only at chapters, sao paulo has a lot more in common with copenhagen than with rio, in france lyon would work maybe better with hambourg than with grenoble...
I have therefore the little fear that this system would promote even more the current big chapters and make the small ones sink very soon, as they would not anymore get the benefits of the big brother next door.
For this critic to be constructive, maybe I would end with a parralel with the EU bodies. It mainly functions with national representatives, as CISV nowadays does, but it has also a "Comitee of the Regions" body that skip the NA level and deal directly with cities and ... yeah regions you got the point.
What about keeping our NA system which suit more to the world reality, but think about sometimes skipping this intermediary level and create chapters to chapters cooperations ?
(here we find once again the twin chapters idea, that one day we'll have to think of seriously ... unless this has already been done ?)
Sorry for the agressive beggining of this comment, it was just done to counter-balance the general enthousiasm :-D
Peace Out
Clemzi
language-wise that would be very good,
not only for AIM, but also for NBMs...
because there is some country that have an unbalanced number of same-language-speaking chapters
(for exemple: canada has 9 chapters that speak fluent english and barely speak french, and only 1 chapter that speaks french, its hard for such minority chapters to be equal in such events that needs same-language speaking situations and meetings...when there's a proeminent majority
Post a Comment
<< Home