PartnersGF - 2005-02-23
Comment regarding Selection Process for GFATM A member of the delegation responds
************
[Stu Flavell, Communications Focal Point for the Communities Delegation of the Global Fund has sent in the following in response to Richard Sterns comments regarding the Selection committee of the Global Fund Board. Please find Dr. Sterns posting by clicking here: http://eforums.healthdev.org/read/messages?id=4317. As always, comments are encouraged, especially from members who have not previously had a chance to comment on this issue.]
**********************
On the selection process-
We are working within the range of people who have some experience with the Fund, usually someone who has been engaged with the delegation's actual work. there is now a body of over 20 HIV+ people who have served within the delegation as advisors in various capacities, and there are others, such as those that some activism at country-level in many countries.
The selection committee process contains be people from both within the current delegations but also former participants and outside community leaders, who understand the demands on the official representatives to Global Fund. The alternate and Board member have to function at a certain level in English to be effective- it is an everyday reality of the post. While official Board meetings are translated into five UN languages, everyday meetings and conversations cannot be, and this is the commerce of daily Global Fund Board Governance. There are advisors who work hard with the hundreds of pages of Board materials to prepare for a committee or Board meeting, then do participate in their native language in the meeting-- Rodrigo Pascal is great at both. The Board delegate and alternate need to deal in English at some professional level. Part of the rest of the delegation contains some other writing
and thinking support, but there are plenty of moments when it comes down to the Board delegate in a room.
At the end of the day it is a selection, done based on an assessment of credentials. The three delegations have worked together to minimise costs and to ensure that there is some regional balance across delegations that can span the whole globe. I have been grateful for ICASO's willingness to should this global task with a minimum of
infrastructure- the thought of doing a separate process for each delegation, with different rules, is at one time appealing and daunting and potentially confusing, as many candidates qualify in two categories.
I would encourage people to apply, if they meet qualifications. We can use as many candidates in the process as think they can honestly do the job, and more eyes on the process makes it stronger. As someone who has served on the selection committee once, not this round, I know that there is an honest respect for potential candidates. Last year, Anandi Yuravaj, a HIV+ field worker for the International HIV/AIDS Alliance was selected--she was one of the correspondents for the GNP+ CCM study, not an insider of any sorts, but has stepped into the role well. The process of having the newly elected people come in as the alternate in principle in all three delegations should also help with the institutional learning curve involved.
The GF Board is an intense assignment, and really swells up to fill your waking hours, especially when you realise what is at stake. For those of us who have worked on it a lot, like me, we are reaching for methodologies of communication and empowerment that allow knowledge transfer and ensure consistency within the delegation and beyond. The Communities Delegation is working with a group of about 15 people, some who go to meetings, others who just work electronically with us, as we handle materials for Board and committee meetings. A single major committee report for a GF Board meeting can be 100 pages, so we work to get the document digested into key points for the delegation for discussion for input to meeting decision-making. English understanding is important for the back work, but our delegation won a key concession on follow-up care, argued completely in Russian...but Natasha, again one of the CCM Study correspondents who has come to the table, worked hard in English to get support for that resolution with the other delegations.
In the end, it trying to match the right person for the task, knowing that you need someone smart and respects that this is new institution, has a way of doing business, and in which you have been given a role. Of the 20 or so HIV+ folks that have been around the process, three have passed away in the short life of the Fund, and most of the rest of us are looking for responsible ways to institutionalise the NGO/Community role within the Global Fund, responsibly handle TB, Malaria and HIV, and be responsible for the world of concerns around the Fund from the Board level.
Richard, the questions are great, and as a Communications Focal Point for the Communities Delegation, I would encourage you to help us continue to think through these processes in a way that is fair to individuals, the community, and the institution for which we are providing governance.
Stu Flavell, GNP+
Communications Focal Point
Communities Delegation, The Global Fund
Chair, Resource Mobilisation and Communications Committee
P.O. Box 11726
1001GS Amsterdam
The Netherlands
+31 20 4234114 office +31 20 423-4224 fax +31 61 157-2520 mobile
ic@gnpplus.net