Ultimate Goal of a Development Agency: Put Itself Out of Work - Don Peters
Printer-friendly version
DownloadNone of us predicted the present economic crisis twelve months ago. In March last year, the Canadian dollar was par with the American and the economies in both countries were robust. Within six months, the Canadian dollar fell 20% and the global economy went bust and is still going bust. Ten years ago, climate change wasn’t on the radar. Fifteen years ago, one didn’t see regular newsprint articles on Islam. Twenty years ago, as an MCC Country Representative in Brazil, I communicated with Akron with a bi-weekly telegram.
To say that the world has changed in the last twenty years is an understatement. And, if anything, the pace of change has accelerated. What will our world look like in 10 years, in 15 years, in 20 years? As one – among all the rest – who couldn’t anticipate the present financial crisis, I’d be reluctant to guess. It is in this context that I offer these thoughts, on MCC’s top programmatic priorities for the future:
- The trajectory that humankind is on would suggest that over the next decade, the world will be less peaceful, less equitable and the environment more vulnerable. MCC needs to position itself in order to speak to these issues – domestically and internationally – with concrete action.
- MCC work grew from ‘relief’ to ‘development’ to ‘advocacy’ over half a century. As MCC work grew, each of the new focal points – development and then advocacy -- did not replace the former one(s). Today, these three components are programmatic ‘legs’ to the MCC platform.
- There is every reason to expect that MCC will continue to respond to natural and human-made disasters, will continue to form partnerships to address development needs, and will continue to engage North American people groups, including policy makers in government.
In essence, I expect that the three programmatic ‘legs’ of the MCC platform will be valid for the next decade and that the issues I identified above – peace, equity and ecology – will be front and centre of our programmatic foci. We will make even stronger linkages between disaster response and ecology, between food justice and development. We will see even stronger connections among disaster response, development and peace / advocacy.
We’ve all heard that the ultimate goal of a development agency should be to put itself out of work. Initial indicators for the next two decades would suggest that MCC will not be able to do so any time soon.
Comments
Dale Taylor
731 78th Avenue NW
Calgary, AB T2K 0S4
March 14, 2009
Dear Arli, Abe and other friends in MCC:
I was unfortunately unable to attend the Wineskins visioning meeting in Alberta in January, so I’m grateful for this opportunity to comment on MCC’s reshaping process. You are engaged in important and necessary work, that will I believe move MCC to a new level of effectiveness. My comments certainly fall short of proposing answers to the difficult questions you are addressing, but are merely observations based on my experience, as an MCC Canada staff person for five years, and through my work in other Mennonite institutions. So, to plunge in:
What is MCC’s purpose?
I don’t know, and I hope that this process will help MCC to choose. My view of MCC is that it does too many things, and is thus not able to answer very clearly what value it gives for its $100 million. Anecdotes about individuals served and partners empowered are true and important; they do not, however, show why it was a good idea to spend resources in one way rather than another.
I recall the process by which MCC adopted the current mission and vision statements. At the Annual Meeting, the question was asked, “does this give us a means to say No to anything that we might do?” And the answer was given, “I think that with this we can do whatever we choose.” Generally, the purpose of a mission (of a purpose) is to define some boundaries; without this, MCC, whether or not it tries to be so, is seen as all things to all people. This is not sustainable.
Central to the question of MCC’s purpose is the role of MCC as a volunteer-sending organization. It always seemed to me that MCC was trying to follow two purposes: providing relief and development support in situations of need, and sending volunteers. There was rarely an acknowledgement that these purposes might not always be congruent. MCC needs to decide whether sending volunteers is one response among many, or whether, it is “the best Mennonite educational institution.” Answering the question about the role of volunteers should then help MCC to address a range of HR issues.
To Whom is MCC Accountable?
MCC is and needs to be accountable to its owners. This is simple and should be obvious, and I mention it only because there is a temptation to create alternate accountabilities. The intention, to give power to a wider range of voices, is admirable, but again, this is unsustainable. It is important for the owners to recognize their responsibility to take decisions and provide direction.
So the question then becomes, who should own MCC, if not the Mennonite conferences that currently own the various MCCs? Again, some observations. The conferences have provided faithful leadership for many years; at the same time, there is a great deal of vitality and variety in the Mennonite congregations across Canada and the U.S. beyond what is represented in the conferences. And, although provincial MCC boards are chosen by the conferences, the Annual Meeting consists of delegates from the congregations.
I would like to see MCC explore a model of mixed membership, that would include both corporate members (eg, congregations) and individuals. I would also encourage MCC to create an opportunity for MCC Alumni to become involved in governance, which is currently only available to those attached to Mennonite conferences.
The owners do not need to be the donors; however, both owners and donors need to know who owns MCC.
What is the Appropriate Structure for MCC?
An appropriate structure would be explicable, effective, and cost-effective: the current structure of provincial/ regional, national and bi-national boards requires a great deal of volunteer travel time and expense, that seems hard to justify by the results.
If MCC were to move to a more broadly-based membership, with both individuals and congregations eligible for membership, it would require a different process of board selection. Organizations such as credit unions and co-operatives represent one model: in this process, individuals are nominated for the Board, articulate their vision and qualifications, and are selected by a membership-wide voting process. While I stop short of actually recommending this, I think it is a model that is appropriate to the ways in which MCC is engaged by its current constituencies.
Thank you for taking time to consider these observations. I look forward to the unfolding of the Wineskins project in the coming months.
Sincerely,
Dale Taylor