Dear CELA Friends, Many of you who missed the Fergana Reunion have asked “what happened in Ferghana?” This letter tries to summarize and explain the main results of the Ferghana Reunion – in particular, the decision to freeze registration for the Summer Congress until 1 May 2009.  

STUDY TOUR.

Well, the first thing that “happened in Ferghana” is that CELA Uzbekistan hosted a brilliant study tour of the Ferghana Valley including visits to Ferghana, Kokand, Rishton, Marghilan, as well as Tashkent. It was an inspiring group effort by the whole UZ team – flawlessly organized! Thanks to all of them for such a magnificent event!

My Comments:
I completely agree with Adam! The organization of the event was in a very high level!

Adam wrote:

TRANSITION PLAN.

Now, the report on the work part of the reunion. We aimed to finalize a CELA renewal plan (begun by the Consuls in Bishkek). We were looking for an operational transition plan explaining how an improved CELA – with new and better mission/ programming/ financing/ governance – would be carried forward in the future as the responsibility of CELA members themselves. The idea was that this plan would be presented for discussion and ratification to CELA members, potential donors and sponsors at the Summer Congress in Istanbul.

 WE DID NOT ACHIEVE THIS GOAL.

However, it became clear in Ferghana that no operational plan for CELA’s future was ready. CELA will change, but – after two reunions and many months devoted to the subject – there were still no concrete ideas about how. Without a detailed transition plan, there is nothing to present and discuss in Istanbul – there is no reason for CELA members and donors to travel thousands of kilometers, spending tens of thousands of dollars, for a meeting without possibility of success.

 
My comments:

Actually I don't understand about what kind of document Adam is taking about. Is it transition plan, or strategic plan, or operational plan, renovation plan, business plan, operational transition plan. I am sure, thats is cause of the problem. CELA administers have no even idea what kind of document they need from the CELA members.
If you need a detailed business plan with detailed budget (according to the actions), I agree with Adam, that, we do not have such document.

However, as result of the Bishkek councils' meeting and Fergana reunion, there is an overall strategic plan (even its more abstract) that was presented by 2 groups in Fergana. I don't understand, why Adam doesn't mentioned anything about real working at breakout groups and presentations. That was actually overall strategic plan. Based on this documents and document which prepared at the Bishkek meeting (Elvira kindly distributed that material) we could easely work on more detailed business plan which Adam and Co. could present before the donors at Istanbul congress.


Adam wrote:

TWO ALTERNATIVES.

Two alternative points of view emerged in Ferghana, splitting the participants (roughly) into two groups. Both groups agreed that CELA members did not have a transition plan yet; also, that without a transition plan there should be no Summer Congress in July. One group argued that it was possible to create an operational plan in the time remaining. Therefore, they advocated for hard work on it now, drafting a proposal in the next few weeks, with the objective that the Congress take place as planned in July.

The other group argued that CELA would not be ready with a transition plan by July. Therefore, the Congress must be postponed to later date (e.g. 2010), and in the meantime “something more radical” was needed to push CELA members to take control of their network.

 SOMETHING MORE RADICAL.

The second (“something more radical”) group agreed that the Congress needed to be postponed by six months or a year. In the meantime, members would use the break to analyze the network’s potential, and develop a realistic plan for its sustainable existence. The radical part of the proposal is that CELA members will never really take responsibility for their program – talk, talk, but never do – as long as SIBF are organizing and paying for everything. To shake up its members/ separate the do-ers from free-riders/ make it a members-driven rather than donor-driven organization SIBF funds should be suspended for one year. During this time, CELA members must make their own efforts to keep CELA going programmatically and financially (membership fees, fund-raising, in-kind contributions, etc.). The group foresaw the possibility of two meetings during this period, funded by CELA members themselves, one in the Caucasus and one in Central Asia.

 The group called their overall approach “shock therapy” and argued that “free money spoils the network.” A slightly less radical version of the same idea is that donors funds could be used to keep at least core CELA functions going, like the website, database, staff maintenance, etc.

 My comments:

Actually this was the shameful part of the Fergana reunion. At the second day of discussions, some "lazy" people came up with the idea of taking vacation for 1 year. Adam calls it "radical plan".
Unfortunately some CELA administrators were a part of this shameful plan. We just wasted our valubale times at that discussions. Instead of working in smaller groups on detailed "business plan" at the second discussions day of the event, all the group in panel started these useless discussions about taking or not 1 year vacation for having rest from the SIBF or not.
 
Adam wrote:

SMOOTH TRANSITION.

As said above, the other group argued against this approach. It continued to favor “smooth transition” according to the original Bishkek-Ferghana-Congress plan. The group reasoned that “shock therapy” would not help the network but kill it. It argued that networks stay alive because of meetings, but CELA would not have sufficient funds to conduct suitable meetings, and the Summer Congress remained the best platform to get together and discuss how CELA should proceed into the future.

 My comments:

Unfortunately, Adams purposely or not, didn't mentioned the fact that the basis for the "smooth transition" is to register the netowork and strengthen the fundrasing activities of the network in order to ensure the sustainability of the network. The CELA congress should be held in time (in Jule) and not to be postponed.

Adam wrote:

CHOOSING AN APPROACH.

Given the different arguments and opinions, the following plan was adopted.

 Each of the two groups will submit detailed operational (business) plans for its approach by 20 April 2009. The collection point for plans will be Adam (asalbion@yahoo.com). Anybody can join either of the groups to help elaborate a group plan. Furthermore, anybody is welcome to submit his or her own business plan in support of these questions (“What CELA Should Be”), also to Adam. 

1. CELA staff will be available to provide any detailed information about CELA (programmatic, financial, budget, etc.) to help formulate ideas, equally to both group and all those interested.
2. After 20 April 2009 we will have 10 days reach a consensus on the position. Remember that Consuls are the voice of the network, while GNF’s stake in CELA’s success is represented through SIBF.
3. By 1 May 2009 we will decide whether to conduct the Congress in July or postpone it. Koc University has generously agreed to allow us this time to make up our minds.
4. Therefore registration for the Congress is frozen until 1 May 2009. If the decision is made to cancel the Congress, registration fees that have already been paid will be returned. Furthermore, SIBF has generously agreed that money that was allocated to the Congress money would be held in trust until the time when the network was ready to gather again and present a serious, operational transition plan.

 My comment:

I myself personally still supporter of the "smooth transition" adea and will contribute for the development of the CELAs' future. I'm going to submitt the detailed strategic plan for CELA for your discussions.