Proposal #61: ISS.
I propose that instead of 3, we only keep one International Staff for Seminar.
Rationale:
It costs a fortune. This year, over 40.000 £. I suggest that with this money we build, every year, a CISV house in a different country. This would keep camps cheaper for a generation, and allow us to increase the quantity and quality of all our programmes.
Respectfully submitted, Marcos (BRA)
4 Comments:
Mmh with 40.000 £ we could probably buy just a CISV storeroom, a house costs way much more than that (at least in all the EU countries), not considering that houses have costs of mantainance like taxes, bills etc etc.
But what i disagree with is the idea behind the proposal: I dont get how cutting the international staff we would increase the quality and quantity of our programmes.
For sure we would decrease the quality of seminar camp, would the other programmes benefit from that?
Dario
Marcos I love this proposal!! In CISV we spend so much money on travelling that often I wonder if we are simply all about travelling to exotic destinations instead of our "CISV Philosophy". This holds for all levels, whether it is travelling to the IJCBs, AIMs or camps: I think we can and probably should cut a lot of these expenses. Yours is a very concrete proposal on how to cut these costs, that's why I love it.
However, maybe instead of the rule that the staff has to come from the hosting nation we can also set a certain amount of money as travel budget per camp/ seminar. I mean; you can come from the same country and have high travel expenses (think Brazil and the US) or low travel expenses (think the Netherlands or many other EU countries).
Where the money should be spend on is an entirely different question, if you ask me. But being efficient with the means we have is always good. The money can also go to supporting participants from Chapters that otherwise can't come, helping Chapters financially in hosting a camp/ seminar that otherwise couldn't, or indeed in investing it in longer term projects such as housing, which is a great idea anyway.
Keep it up!
- Ingrid
Well, what I think is that - though I understand the format of 3+2 in Seminar Staff (to keep it, on purpose, as a "weak team" and not take full control of the camp), it really has to be re-thought.
We spend, really, a fortune on International Staff and - very often - at least one of them is a big big shit. It does not increase quality of the camp and we know it.
Now, I think that some of this money could be saved with a more decent distribution of Staff (instead of sending people from Australia to Costa Rica - for instance); but, in general, it's about making our programmes cost-effective.
About how to use that money. Well, I think quite a few NAs in the world (including in Europe) could - together with what they have and donations make a house or an activity centre for their chapters with 40.000£.
But I'm open for new suggestions: How would you use the money?
Hey all, I think we should not forget that the Staff travel expenses are paid for by the participants. They pay an extra staff travel fee when they go to Seminar Camp. So I guess that's not money we would have if we didn't spend it for staff travel. Another thing is to discuss whether or not the international staff group in a Seminar Camp makes sense and how we can travel costs low...
Eli
Post a Comment
<< Home