- Количество слайдов: 17
Photo: Andras Martoni, Slovakia, 2014 GLEN Future Scenarios Members Assembly- March 2016
1 st scenario Repartition of GLEN coordination tasks among members Which coordination tasks are necessary to ensure a smooth coordination of the GLEN cycle? Related to the GLEN Multipliers Training Cycle ü Internships acquisition and selection (documents and fact sheets update, activation of former and new partners, facilitation of priorities and requirements of members, redaction of short descriptions, …) ü Participants acquisition and selection (including advertisement on GLEN website and national platforms, tandem matching, successor management, intenships management, guidance of participants), ü MTC coordination (seminars arrangements –MTS + RENew-, documents, handbooks, forms update, communication with the teams, members representation on seminars, …) ü Lead facilitators and tutors selection (application calls update, legal/financial matters, selection process, contracting, guidance) Photo: Lukáš Policar, Poland 2011 Related to GLEN network structure ü Finances (planning, fundraising, financial agreements with members, …) ü Facilitation decision-making of GLEN network (Preparation and organisation of Members Assembly and Steering Committee meetings) ü Communication (external and internal communication, GLENweb and glen-europe. org websites) . Related to strategic developments ü Cooperations (European and non-European cooperations, attendance on GE conferences, Host Fartner Feedback report, Global Partner Network) ü Annual Events, etc…
Photo: Lukáš Policar, Poland 2011 .
Three-layer structure for decision making and responsibilities Photo: Lukáš Policar, Poland 2011 .
Photo: Lukáš Policar, Poland 2011 Pros and cons .
2 nd scenario GLEN as an umbrella NGO with an office Photo: Lukáš Policar, Poland 2011 .
2 nd scenario GLEN as an umbrella NGO with an office ü There’s no Members Assembly and no network officer but a monthly conference call between GLENHub and Steering Committee Members who are together responsible for operations and strategy implementation. ü Member and multipliers representatives can be Steering Committee members or GLENHub employees, both are paid tasks. ü Members and multiplier representatives hold employment rigths over GLENHub employees, ensuring that GLEN is owned and governed by them. ü The correlation and structure with GPN must be further explored. ü GLENHub doesn’t pay participant cost (no Shared Fund from GLENHub) but decreases MTC cost significantly Photo: Lukáš Policar, Poland 2011 (down to ca. 60% of current cost) ü GLENHub’s main direction is given by the GLEN vision and the 2016 -2020 Strategy Plan. Additionally, the Annual Events can give „directives” based on annual progress report and the discussions taking place. ü Any small request for change can done during the year (decision: SC and GLENHub), any bigger request can be voted for on the Annual Event. .
GLEN OFFICE GLEN HUB GLEN 50% FOCUS ON ACTION AND ACTIVISM, GEA PROJECTS More focus on project incubation, to give multiplyers an inspiring, supporting environment for activism, a physical space to meet, discuss and plan. MULTIFUNCTIONAL SPACE GLEN’S OWN SEMINAR SPACE there would be no need to pay for seminar space, additionally, we could use it to rent it for others RESTAURANT AND COFFEE SHOP it would be open for „outsiders”, provide income, hence more financial independence and stability, cofunding for projects. Additionally, the cost of MTC and other trainings don’t have to include food: participants can buy cheap (vegan? ) food in the restaurant.
GLEN HUB CONS v There’s a lot of uncertainity about the implementation and viability. v It is a huge change that might need investment – monetary and human resource-wise as well. v Ownership of the individual member organisations decrease v It’s more of a central coordination and power. Many members are only „users” of the GLEN infrastructure. Foto: Ľudmila Pastorová 2004 Foto: Miroslava Bobáková 2006 GLEN HUB PROS v Clearer responsibilities for task management v Those who work, get paid (200 euros for SC members per month + GLENHub employees) – no serious job is unpaid for more sustainablity and fairness in the network v Financially and politically more independent as part of the income is based on social business v As a legal non-profit entity, GLEN can apply for many projects, can take the lead (and responsibility) so the application writing process can be smoother v. Multipliers find space for themselves to use, where they can come any time and be a multiplier, plan projects. Office offers them space and infrastucture for free. v Considerably less restriction in financial administration than in ASA – funds can be allocated based on need, not budget lot. v Structure is inclusive and not necessarily Europe-centric. GLEN Hub is easier to copy than current set-up v GPN relations are yet to be explored but physical space definitely helps.
COST 2017 v Kick-off INCOME 2017 5, 000 EUR legal, bank and other cost of setting up an organisation, office space rental 3 -month advance and furniture v Monthly cost Office space Webhosting, web-based services, office materials, legal advisory Accountancy Three paid staff (one office lead: 1700, colleagues: 1300) Interns and volunteers (2 pax) Board allowance (5 x 200) Fundraise and social business developer receives payment based on % of funds raised 600 EUR v Contracting jobs (if necessary) Summary MTC implementation cost 1. 36 EUR / ppt / month from Acting Members 12 x 7, 000 EUR 35 x 12 x 115= 48, 300 EUR 5, 000 EUR v v 300 EUR v MTC implementation cost 2. 350 EUR / ppt from participant allowance 4300 EUR 500 EUR 1000 EUR 350 x 115= v 0 EUR 40, 250 EUR Summary Counting with 115 pps (like in 2016) 89, 930 EUR 89, 000 EUR COST 2018 INCOME 2018 Office space 1300 EUR Miscallenous (web-based services, office materials, legal advisory 500 EUR Accountant as paid staff 1300 EUR One coordinator (1300/pax) 1300 EUR Permanent tutor 1300 EUR Office lead 1700 EUR Two interns 500 EUR Board allowance (5 x 200) 1000 EUR v Contracting jobs v Summary MTC participant contribution, 350 EUR / ppt from participant allowance 350 x 120= 50 (paying) Supporting Individual and 15 Supporting Organisations, 12 x 15 x 10 + 12 x 50 x 5 = 4800 EUR Income from project generation (Erasmus, others) 5, 000 EUR Income from educational trainings (other than the MTC) 2000 EUR v 12 x 8, 900 EUR v v Monthly cost Both physical and web development v v 15, 000 EUR Coordination cost, 35 EUR / ppt / month. Photo: Lukáš Policar, Poland 2011 from Acting Members 35 x 120= 50, 400 EUR v Infrastructure dev. v 2 x EVS interns host (net income is ca. 50% of received funds) 4800 EUR v v Social business (seminar space rental, restaurant, coffee shop, theater/exhibition, crowdfunding, etc. ) 24, 000 EUR v Summary 5, 000 EUR 126, 800 EUR 42, 000 EUR 133, 000 EUR
3 rd scenario Integrate GLEN into ASA (GLENin. ASA) ü GLEN is lead by ASA, decision making takes place within its structures (ASA Council) ü Coordination and strategic development in one organisation, less capacities required from other members, efficient running of the programme ü Shared fund is increased to 30 participants, freed capacities of members can be used for project-basad fundraising instead of participant fundraising ü Less ownership from all members, less network-like Photo: Lukáš Policar, Poland 2011 ü Question how to integrate multipliers representatives in ASA decision making? ü Involvement on national – European level may decrease ü How to create balance among members with and without resources ? .
Responsabilities of members on national level
European coordination, decision-making and strategic development embedded in ASA structures
Pros Contras: -less ownership for members and multipliers - Probably less involvment on national and European level after the cycle - - less flexibility and room for innovation?
4 th scenario Combination of GLENin. ASA and GLEN Hub ü The MTC is carried out by ASA; ü In pre-agreement with all parties and donors, a certain amount of participants’ internship allowance paid by the German ministry would go to run GLENHub as an NGO; ü GLENHub would be responsible for everything beyond the MTC, with special focus on GEA / activism / youth projects and Annual Event; ü GLENHub and ASA would both share representatives in each others’ decision Photo: Lukáš Policar, Poland 2011 making boards. . See processes and things that SC members would consider important to keep for GLEN even if the MTC is integrated into ASA: