COL Reports 4 to 6 - by PDG Douglas W Vincent

Today was another busy session although we did have some free time this afternoon.  While many went site-seeing or shopping, several of us took the opportunity to visit the Evanston office.  For some who had never been here before, it was a special treat. I enjoyed seeing some staff I've worked with through the years.

I get the sense that several of the representatives are getting tired and I'm not sure whether it is our brains, ears or bums that are starting to go numb from all of the discussions.  Some feel that, with a few exceptions, we really have not passed much significant legislation to this point.  And a few like me are frustrated that we are not showing more visionary leadership by embracing the investigation of potential new ideas and opportunities.

From speaking with repeat attendees, they think this group is more conservative and hesitates to embrace change, especially if there is a cost involved.  Some delegates seem impatient or tired and we're getting more motions to close debate on items.   I should say though, that the moderator is doing an excellent job of trying to respect everyone's right to process, while keeping things moving along.

In one case resolutions were not heard due to being referred to the board in a bundle.  In some ways this is expedient but I feel that in fairness clubs/districts are sometimes not given the opportunity to present their case.  Regardless of significance, I feel a member should have a right to speak to their submission.

This morning there was an interesting discussion on resolution 10-75 asking the Board to consider a program for immediate dispatch of disaster relief materials.  With the recent disasters this was a timely topic and while RAGs or other relief groups within Rotary are already active in this area, it was felt a good rapid dispatch procedure was needed overall. 

While there are some Rotarian volunteers doing great work in specific areas it was felt that people in disasters have many needs and therefore we don't want to focus on just a few of the ones which get the most publicity.  The result was 361 to 148 in favour of reviewing the feasibility of developing something, but whatever happens will depend on future board decisions.

As many know the Board has wrestled with RAGS in recent times and has set up a committee to review the entire program of having these special interest groups.  Discussion on resolution 10-81 suggested that RI could better utilize RAGS already in place, rather than worry about more committees and their related overhead costs.  While those in favour thought the resolution could help provide better implementation through RAGS, others commented that things like literacy and peace were being left out.

In the end, this resolution did not pass but the suggestion was made that we need to define a way that RAGs can be worked with to use their member's passion and expertise for the good of Rotary initiatives.

A surprising adoption of 10-87 was one of the few significant resolutions we've adopted in the last couple of days.  With a vote of 263 to 250 in favour, we have created the 5th avenue of service, labeled as New Generations.  Many felt that youth programs are already present throughout the other four avenues and if put into their own area there could be a sense of restriction from the avenues of community and international service.  New Generations are seen as the future of our planet and an important part of Rotary, so I believe this is what carried the result.

Motion 10-94 was passed asking the Board to consider recognizing EarlyAct clubs.  This is a program similar to Rotaract and Interact but aimed at the elementary school age group.  Many felt the younger they get exposed to Rotary, the more likely they will embrace Rotary in the future.  It was mentioned that of those Rotarians under 30, 10% of them have come into Rotary via Interact/Rotaract, so we need to further develop this important resource and service to our youth and communities.

A new program for "RYPEN" (Rotary Youth Program of Enrichment) was proposed in 10-97 which at first seemed to be a duplication of RYLA.  But after discussion, it was clear this new idea is able to fill a void for 14-18 year old youth who need help but may not qualify for RYLA. 

Participants are generally from troubled or difficult backgrounds and this new approach affirms them and provides a better view of self.  While it seemed to be a good program to help develop self confidence and esteem in troubled youth the assembly defeated it 181 to 333.

This is a case where I feel the COL may have shown lack of future vision, with some people commenting we had no money in the budget at RI.  This was despite the proposer clearly indicating the cost was born by participants or their families, with some support from sponsor clubs.  Further, the resolution was only asking the Board to consider the concept, with no commitment to the program or funding at this time.

Resolution 10-112 proposed to eliminate grandchildren from the ineligible list of applicants for Rotary Foundation programs, such as GSE and Scholars.  I was successful in my proposed amendment getting the assembly to include children as well.  Currently, some feel the exclusion of Rotarian children/grandchildren from TRF programs is unfair to well qualified family applicants. 

In the past we have been led to believe this policy was influenced by an IRS tax restriction which is inaccurate.  TRF Trustees received an opinion that there is sufficient arms-length distance between a donor and a recipient, that this is not a tax concern. 

There were discussions on application of the 4 Way Test which could be argued both ways.  It could also be seen as 'reverse discrimination' to some extent.  In the end, despite the amendment passing, the amended motion failed.  Many felt the potential appearance of bias was concerning and that it was inappropriate for a Rotarian or family to have personal gain from TRF programs.

There were some additional GSE resolutions regarding age guidelines which were withdrawn by the proposers.  This was following the exhausting discussion above with an apparent lack of appetite for any change to TRF programs.

As I have mentioned in previous reports, a resolution is merely a request for the Board to investigate the feasibility and consider a proposal. There is no requirement for them to act.  So it is frustrating that some members will not even embrace looking at new ideas, even though no program or funding is committed at this point.

I must be getting tired, because today I was sitting in the session thinking "Why does that woman talk so much?  . . . She has a view on everything!"  Then I realized that it was the voice of the Spanish translator, who was obviously the English speaking voice of each Spanish presenter that came to the microphone.  Daaahhh!

Well, that's it for today and time for some rest.

Today was an exhausting day, starting again ½ hour early and then running until 7 pm to work through the large volume of submissions.  It is a bit frustrating at times to see resolutions passed by for a variety of reasons which may or may not be valid in my mind.  While some proposals carry a lot of genuine concern and discussion, I feel that many are not taken seriously. 

When I look through what we have actually accomplished to improve and change Rotary for the future, I feel that we have failed somewhat in the process.  Often passage of a motion is influenced by the presentation style of proposer, the clarity of the wording that is used, the anticipated cost (which can be skewed by assumptions in the Financial Implication Statement) and how frustrated or tired members are, based on the time of day or the exhaustion from previous motions.

I have been receiving a lot of feedback from many of you saying how much you are enjoying my reporting of the activities.  In particular, several say they enjoy some of the discussion and thinking behind the decisions, rather than just seeing the voting results. 

I should remind people about the difference between resolutions and enactments, which I have not been specifically identifying in my reporting.  A  COL resolution is merely a notice sent to the Board asking them to consider the item in question.  There is no required action they must take other than evaluating and then deciding whether they might do something or let it go.  These refer mostly to current program or procedure changes, or future ideas to consider.

In the case of a COL enactment, this is a change to RI Bylaws/Constitution, which are binding on the Board and entire organization.  These take much more time because the wording has to be more exact.  I understand they are reviewed and edited for legal wording by the RI Committee afterward and then become effective July 1st.  An updated MOP will be distributed in a few months.

Resolution 10-121 was an interesting one this morning which proposed that TRF should consider accepting Matching Grant applications only from clubs who contribute to the Annual Programs Fund.  The idea was to promote awareness and giving to TRF with some Districts reporting that it has worked for them on a local basis.  Although it was strongly felt there is a need to address clubs who use Grants but do not contribute, there was also the thought that we should consider the interest of the beneficiaries over contributions.  This failed 230 to 282 which suggests a strong acceptance sentiment with such close results.

Resolution 10-122 proposed the Trustees consider providing Matching Grants for building construction and associated volunteer service.  Many commented that local villagers in recipient communities need to take some ownership through participation and with this, as well as funding from other organizations.  So we should leave the bricks and mortar to them.  They would have pride of ownership being able to help with a building whereas they cannot manufacture the other items like dental equipment or make books, etc.

Another factor that influenced the voting on this item was the comment that often, donated buildings are not used for the actual purpose intended use by the project. This failed 205 to 309 against.  Another failed resolution was to consider RAGS for WCS and Matching Grant activities, namely having a "restricted donation account" for their special interest projects.  There has been little appetite for this COL to approve any consideration for investigating potential of new ideas.

 Another membership idea was to have the Board consider exempting new members under the age of 40 from dues, for the first two years.  The thought was that it would be easier to attract younger prospects with financial concerns.  The proposal failed 40 to 427. 

It was proposed to have a lower dues rate for a Rotarian spouse/partner in cases where couples are both Rotarians.  Some felt "a Rotarian is a Rotarian" so they should pay full tilt rather than start another level of membership.  Many thought a member should take the complete Rotarian package, including full dues, if they wished to be a member.  While the resolution failed by a wide margin, a concern expressed was that Rotarian spouses should not be treated any different financially than non-Rotarian spouses at things like social events.

Enactment 10-136 brought a lot of controversial discussion.  It proposed that dues be increased by $3.00 annually to establish a subsidy fund for RI Convention registration costs.  With this Board proposal, they said the convention registration could then be reduced to $100. which would attract more attendees.

It was thought that the lower registration cost would influence more participants, especially the local Rotarians.  Currently only 7% of local members attend a Convention when it is held in their area.  It is well recognized that the conventions inspire and elevate commitment for those who attend. A lower price could also encourage new or young members to attend.  After much debate the motion failed 170 to 345 with a suggestion that a reasonable day rate might motivate local Rotarians to participate.

Considerable time was spent discussing the duties of the District Governor (E 10-151) and in particular their relationship with the Governor-Elect, which has been a problem in some areas.  It was passed that the "DG shall supply the DGE with full information on clubs and recommended action asap" and certainly prior to the International Assembly.  The intent is to promote continuity and cooperation between the DG and DGE for better planning and leadership.

Following this, Enactment 10-152 proposed that to qualify for being Governor-Nominee, one must have been Assistant Governor for a year.  This was then amended to "preferably should" rather than must.  The AG position is a good tool to assess leadership abilities of a person but other Chair positions can also do this. 

Further, in some Districts the DG appoints AGs, so one aspiring to be a DG may not have an equal opportunity if they are never picked to be AG.  So nomination/election of AGs was suggested.

In the end, the motion failed 243 to 266, but the close vote suggests there is a movement towards an official use of the AG position as training ground and qualifier for DGship.

Unfortunately, due to the shortage of time and I suspect people being frustrated and very tired, many proposals were withdrawn.  While some were very small issues, others were more important in nature and I felt badly that some clubs/districts did not have their issues heard.

A lot of time and frustration was spent on Enactments regarding the election/selection process for Governor-Nominees and the election complaints which affect one area of the world.  In an attempt to stem the large number of challenges and complaints coming to the Board, they recommended Enactments to try and improve how they are handled.  This was very controversial, mainly due to custom and geographical issues. 

When an item affects only one region of the Rotary world or when culture is a factor, it is hard for others to understand or have patience to negotiate the proper wording for an acceptable result.  So a lot of time consuming amendments were attempted regarding definitions and editing of words.

At the last COL there was an attempt to make our "He Profits Most Who Serves Best" motto gender neutral but that result was not popular, so today it was altered to "One Profits Most Who Serves Best."

Another long debate was regarding Enactment 10-168 which would allow the Board to suspend or terminate the membership of a club that retained in its membership any person who had misused funds from TRF or breached stewardship policies of TRF.  In the past there have been some issues pop up and the Board now has more teeth in the policy to deal with such matters. 

The failure of Enactment 10-174 was a disappointment to me, which asked that a standing RI Technology Committee be established.  I spoke to support the motion but with the Board speaking against and a fear of cost, the proposal was defeated 133 to 367.  Following is the text of my comments:

"Having been a member of two RI Technology Task Forces, I speak in favour of this motion.

We have a multitude of Rotary volunteers who have expertise in this area including computer consultants, programmers and engineers.  But we are not taking advantage of this resource.

For example, some of us through the ROTI and ICUFR Fellowships helped to coordinate the volunteers to create 20 Task Force websites during PRIP Frank Devlyn's term, all at little cost to Rotary.

I believe the Financial Impact Statement is not complete, since it does not take into account the valuable and up-to-date technology and knowledge we would acquire at no charge, and which would easily offset any committee cost.

Further, I believe any expense would be minimal with the newer webinar, video conferencing and electronic communications technology these folks use daily.

I urge you to embrace this opportunity to move RI ahead with electronic technology at minimal cost to RI, making Rotary more effective in global service.

Unfortunately, no others spoke in favour of this opportunity and again I felt the COL had little appetite for change by the voting result.

In a surprising vote of 266 to 238, Enactment 10-183 was passed, which will allow each member in US and Canada the option to receive their Rotarian magazine by electronic copy. 

Due to different wording and much confusion over amending, Enactment 10-185 failed.  It would have given members, outside the US and Canada, the same option as above.  I believe that frustration and lost energy prevailed with many just wanting to get the vote over with.  As can be expected, foreign members felt the US and Canada got something they hadn't, which is unfortunate.

As I indicated earlier, we worked until 7 pm tonight so our planned DG 2005/06 reunion dinner was delayed.  But we still had a great time reminiscing and enjoying a catch up on the news from all corners of the world.  Everyone enjoyed that Carl-Wilhelm was able to join us as well, sharing his wisdom and thoughts on the governance and future of RI and TRF.

That's it for another day.

PS - An interesting quote made today:
"Sometimes people are appointed based on evaluations we may not know or understand."

Thanks to many of you who have provided such positive feedback on my COL reports this week.  I am pleased that you find them interesting and informative, and worthy of passing on to your club members and other Rotary friends.

Today was the final day of deliberations and many were happy to be heading to the finish line on this week-long marathon of parliamentary deliberations.  Everyone was in high spirits at the end of the session as we bid farewell to some old and many new Rotary friends.

The morning session started with Enactment 10-186 which passed, allowing two Rotarians at the same address to now have the option of subscribing jointly to the Rotarian magazine.

Those against, maintained that as full Rotary members, each partner should pay full dues, including the magazine subscription.  Others felt it was crazy to mandate two magazines to same home with the related costs and environmental issues involved.  Some suggested the Rotarian Magazine is a marketing tool and the second one could be given to friends or associates.  It was a close vote with 257 in favour and 244 against.

Enactment 10-190 was a very controversial issue which related to the RI travel policy.  While the normal expectation is to travel at economy class, there are special exceptions for senior RI leaders who can travel at business or first class, depending on their position.  I will try to summarize the many comments and views I heard from COL members on this issue.

The first concern was that in most organizations the executive travel policy is an operational issue and therefore should not be contained in the Bylaws.  Generally it would be in an established policy/procedure manual.

Secondly, there was a lot of discussion and attempted amendments to define what class of ticket the various levels of leadership could fly in.  There are different guidelines for RI President, RI President-Elect, RI Directors, RI Trustee Chair, RI Trustees and Past RI Presidents, Directors and Trustees.  Other folks like GSE and Guest Speakers for RI events are also included.

In actual fact, I believe from informal discussions with other members, that the issue had little to do with the technical incorrectness of a travel policy being in the bylaws.  It also had little to do with details of the actual travel policy.  But these issues took up most of the debate.

Prior representatives shared that at the two previous COLs, similar resolutions had been sent to the RI Board, but they had not seen any response or result with regard to the issues.  So this time, I think their intent was to do it via an Enactment which was more binding.  Despite the long and sometimes emotional submissions, including the Board speaking against, the motion passed 337 in favour with 171 opposed.  

After several lunchtime discussions there was a second motion to reconsider the decision.   While several agreed that putting this item into the bylaws was technically incorrect, the assembly defeated the motion to reconsider 135 to 362.

I believe the history books will show this decision as one that looks odd on the surface.   Those who were not part of the deliberations may see it as inappropriate and thus my reason for explaining it here.  I believe that most can return home with a clear conscience that the item was actually considered and voted on two times, each vote being strongly in favour.  A future COL may well choose to correct the technical details by relocating the policy into a more correct location.  

A resolution to consider investigating and revising the legislative COL process was proposed.  In this day of electronic technology, many of the simpler resolutions could possibly be discussed on an internet forum, with voting online. More compromise legislation could also be achieved.  A close vote failed to adopt the idea with 233 for and 272 against.  Not sure why we couldn't at least embrace the idea of looking at some new options.

One member said "We don't take any suggestions because we get wrapped up and bogged down in wanting to check things out before doing anything."  Further to this, my observation is that in most cases we did not even embrace investigating the feasibility of new ideas, even though they had no commitment to implement or spend money. 

For example, on one hand we all talk about membership concerns and the need to explore new ways to attract and retain members.  Yet here, we rejected simply asking the Board to consider or evaluate the many innovative options that were submitted.  I find this a frustration and contradiction with COL action that does not portray a sense of future vision.  Yet, it is the democratic process and I am confident we will find our way eventually.

The next item that took much time was a series of enactments suggesting revisions of qualifications for COL members.  Some felt it is not necessary to be a PDG to participate here.  Others felt younger non-PDG members would not possess the depth of required knowledge.  In response, someone said "What they lack in knowledge, they will make up for with their initiative." 

In general terms, some feel that if we do not embrace younger members, like AGs or District Chairs, in the decision making process, we will not have an organization that suits their needs.  In the end, it was confirmed that one has to be a PDG to qualify and it is recommended a person should attend no more than three meetings of the council.

The last series of enactments related to voting and the entitlement larger districts should have for additional votes.  Some felt a large district with 5000 members should have more votes than a smaller district with 1500 members.  The discussion went from allowing large districts to have two or more representatives, to just giving those same single representatives more votes. Of course, logistics and cost of more members was an issue with a failed vote of 83 for to 418 against.  Some larger districts feel unfairly treated with this.

Heading down the home stretch, the issue of reserved delegate seating at RI Conventions was addressed.  In the past frustration has been experienced when well located reserved seats are not used by delegates, who prefer to sit with their partner or friends.  In the future, these seats will only be reserved for the voting sessions.  Not sure why something like this is in the bylaws either.

Finally, a resolution was rejected to include "InteRota" (an International Rotaract convention) as an official meeting of RI.  Even though self funded with clubs/districts/sponsors covering costs, I believe a perception of the RI suggested $700,000. cost, influenced the voting.  As one delegate commented, "We named a New Generations RI Standing Committee and created a new 5th New Generations Avenue of Service, so why wouldn't we be supportive of this?"   Motion lost 169 to 336.

Well this is finally the end of our official deliberations. Many were tired and relieved that the work has been done, yet pleased that everything was done well with patience, tolerance and a cooperative spirit.  The Chair and Committees involved did a great job of handling issues with firmness and fairness.  The excellent venue, food and service has been enjoyed by all and the Board has been here listening all the while.

I hope that you have found these reports to be interesting and informative.  From the comments and requests received, I know many of you have especially enjoyed the commentary and background discussions I have described.

If anyone has questions or thoughts on the process or discussions, I am pleased to discuss anything on an individual basis.  Remember you can refer to the www.rotary.org website to see copies of the resolutions/enactments, detailed voting results and a variety of news articles on your COL.

With best Rotary regards,

Doug V.
D7080 COL Representative