FUTURE
DIRECTION OF THE SCHOOL OF ST. JUDE.
Introduction
Since
the school management had addressed the issue of financial problem in the
school at the start of this year and the plan for 2015, it’s important to put
across most important issues to all staff individually so that you are aware of
the progress the school of St Jude had made so far as this is the only way to
address issues of common interest by sharing with everybody the concerns,
feelings and matters about the future of the school of St Jude.
Jim’s Changes to the School Policies and
Procedures at his early days in School
On
Tuesday 5th November 2013 Jim suggested some agenda for a meeting
with himself, Jon and Gemma and among others two agenda to be discussed in that
meeting were SJWA and BDMM Policy.
1. SJWA
Options SOSJ
step back and allow SJWA to carry on as it has been doing.
SOSJ provide recommendations to the
SJWA Committee and step back.
SOSJ
take over SJWA savings and loans functions.
SOSJ wind up SJWA and advise staff
to find an external SACCO.
Issues
Is
SOSJ allowed to make staff loans? There are currently laptop
and emergency loans.
Is SOSJ allowed to charge
interest on staff loans?
Is SOSJ allowed to hold staff
savings?
Is SOSJ allowed to enforce staff repayment?
Is SOSJ allowed to charge for this service?
SJWA in SOSJ Limited Board Meeting in
2013
Date and Time: Wednesday 20th November 2013 at
5.07pm
Venue: Offices of Nicholaus Duhia
St
Jude’s Workers Association
Background
The St Jude’s Workers Association, SJWA,
is an unregistered savings and credit cooperative set up some years ago to
enable St Jude staff to buy shares, earn dividends and borrow money. It has had
three committees and a history of chicanery.
Options
o
Allow SJWA to
continue to operate as an unregistered SACCO.
o
Provide ‘good
practice’ recommendations to the SJWA committee.
o
Close SJWA and
advise staff to make alternative arrangements.
Proposals
o
SOSJ
management to instruct SJWA creditors to provide evidence of their equity
balances and SJWA debtors to provide evidence of their loan balances.
o
If
substantial funds are missing, close SJWA and proportionately pay off creditors
with payroll deductions on existing loans.
o
Refuse
to make payroll deductions on new loans.
o
Continue
payroll deductions on existing loans.
o
Place
all SJWA payroll deductions in an escrow account.
o
Use
these funds to proportionately pay off creditors, including the SOSJ.
o
Unrelated
item, SOSJ to obtain licenses to make laptop and emergency loans to staff
members.
Risks
o
Non
SOSJ employees with loans
o
The
current treasurer may be involved in other malpractice.
o
There
could be ill feeling between creditor/debtor staff members.
The
SOSJ Board Resolution on SJWA
Resolution
XXIV
After
deliberating on the same:
The SOSJ Board directed the management to establish
the financial position of the SJWA and to disband this unregistered entity
forthwith.
Staff Reaction to Disband SJWA Operations within the School:
SJWA is a voluntary workers
organization which was started back in 2006 under the permission of the School
Director.
It was agreed by staff and
school management that the school director will be the matron/patron of the
organization and that the organization will run its activities within the
school premises.
Since the school doesn’t issue
loans or approve loans for its staffs from other financial institutions, SJWA
remains the only place where staffs can go for loans for different purposes at
different times.
During its existence in all
these years it has been of great help to all staff of St. Jude despite their
earning differences.
We really don’t know why Jim
suggested winding up SJWA after a short time of his arrival to school.
Staff know that there are some
issues with money management in SJWA and that the school management is also
aware of them and to the SJWA members understanding up to date the management
team has not been able to resolve those issues since they were presented to
them last year.
Following the Board resolution
on SJWA agenda “The
SOSJ Board directed the management to establish the financial position
of the SJWA and to disband this unregistered entity forthwith”.
This board resolution has never
been communicated to staff to date and we humbly ask the school management to
communicate immediately with staff on this matter instead of allowing staff to
continue to contribute their money every month to the entity that is going to
be disbanded forthwith.
2. Review the SOSJ
contribution to the BDMM funds? Should it be monetary only?
The
contribution table below was suggested by Jim without consulting the staff who
established BDMM policy as the beneficiaries of the BDMM policy.
BDMM in SOSJ Limited Board Meeting in
2013
Date and Time: Wednesday 20th November 2013 at
5.07pm
Venue: Offices of Nicholaus Duhia
Deaths,
Marriages and Medical
Background
Some years ago, the SOSJ introduced a
scheme to enable staff members to contribute funds to assist their colleagues
with birth, family death, marriage and medical expenses. The SOSJ also
contributes to these causes, but there has been some discretion allowed and it
is now felt necessary to fix the contributions,
Risks Legacy
and other commitments falling outside the proposed support structure leading to
bad feeling and unfulfilled expectations.
The
SOSJ Board Resolution on BDMM
Resolution XIII
After deliberating on the same:
The SOSJ Board decided to set up a sub
committee on HR issues and appointed Gemma Sisia, Modeste Akida, Jon Ford and
Jim Hopkins to sit on the committee and report back to the Board on how best to
go forward with these issues.
Staff Reaction to the BDMM Policy Changes:
Like SJWA, BDMM is a staff
based policy that was established by staff many years ago to support themselves
on matters related to birth, death and marriage and in recent years medical
support for long sickness of a staff member.
Apart from school’s
contribution to the matter related to students and staff it is a common
practice here in Tanzania to support each other during the happy and difficult
times like birth, death, marriage and sickness.
Jon and Jim you have to be very
careful about the cultural issues in Tanzania. When you go to a new place you
can change something but not the culture of those people and everything they
value. Imagine a Tanzanian who goes to Ireland or England and try to change the
culture of those people. Is this going to be possible??
You know what the reaction
would be if some somebody tries to change your culture and we are afraid that
the same reaction will surely apply to you here.
Right now there are many
changes to BDMM policy which Jim has suggested and staff are not aware of these
changes. However, the implementation had been fulfilled. In the past staff were
involved in every step to the change of BDMM policy something which is not
respected now by the school management, why is it so Headmasters? You
headmasters you attend the management meetings every month, what have you
advised Jon and Jim on this matter? In the end staff are the ones to decide on
BDMM policy and not anybody else including the business manager, Jim.
Staffing Expense and the Effect
on Budget in EAF and SOSJ Board Meeting in 2013
In
November 2013 Jim presented the school financial report to EAF and SOSJ Board
meeting:
DATE: SATURDAY 9TH NOVEMBER
2013
VENUE: ROOM 102-UPPER
PRIMARY SCHOOL, MOSHONO CAMPUS
TIME: 9.22 A.M.
·
As
for the expenditure side. He stated that the big issue is payroll. Payroll and
volunteer costs 70% of budget. He stated that if there are problems with the
budget, the best place to trim is payroll.
Staff Reaction to the Matter:
Here Jim has combined payroll
and volunteers’ costs something which he never mentioned in the meetings with
staff from all campuses in early January 2014 about payroll cost.
In his meetings with Tanzanian
staff he just generalize that the staff payroll is 70% and excluded completely
the western volunteers.
This tells everybody that Jim is not straight forward person but a
pretender who gives two different information on the same thing depending on
which group he is addressing to.
We believe this is done purposely to hide the fact that westerners
payroll cost is higher than anybody else could expect.
With Jim’s pay package of six
million shillings (6,000,000) take home without paying tax or pension
contribution he would do whatever it takes not to disclose that information.
Jim’s salary is far more than many successful business entity
employees in the country not to mention a person who works in a charity school
likeSt.Jude.
If a school can pay such huge amount of money to a western staff why
do we talk about reducing cost here. It doesn’t make any sense. If Jim is
serious with reducing cost, he must start cutting his own salary first before
he goes to the rest of the staff. He is highly paid more than even Gemma the
founder of the School. Can you imagine this!
Mark Cubit‘s Response on
Reducing Staff in SOSJ and EAF Boards Meeting in 2013
DATE: SATURDAY 9TH
NOVEMBER 2013
VENUE: ROOM 102-UPPER
PRIMARY SCHOOL, MOSHONO CAMPUS
TIME: 9.22 A.M.
·
On
the issue of the payroll, he added that there was no need to retrench 30 or so
people.
Staff Reaction to the
Matter:
Mark Cubit the very common name, highly
respected donor of the school and chairman of East Africa Fund Incorporated has
never suggested to reduce staff or give them one year contracts to reduce the
cost. We thank Mark Cubit for your wisdom and strong advice to Jon and Jim. But
we regret that your advice was no taken on board, considered and implemented as
required.
This response is contrary to what Jon and Jim had implemented in the
school by awarding one year contract and reducing staff although staff were
told that this year the school is very fine that statement correlates with what
Mark Cubit recommended above.
There are many ways to save costs and if all stakeholders were
involved staff could get a better solution than what Jon and Jim have come up
with.
Staff are in dilemma here on which statement to follow either from
the person who works day and night to raise money to pay all staffs including
Jon and Jim that is Mr. Mark Cubit or
from the persons who just manage staffs-Jon and Jim and don’t even know how to
raise money to pay for their salaries and the staff.
2014 SOSJ Budget in the SOSJ Board Meeting in 2013
Date and Time: Wednesday 20th November 2013 at
5.07pm
Venue: Offices of Nicholaus Duhia
Background The draft 2014 budget prepared by the
Finance Team had a projected deficit
of $625,000.EAF Inc. is reviewing
ways to raise more revenue and met the marketing team during the recent visit.
SOSJ management
has reduced the 2014 cost budget and is seeking the view of the Board about
these suggestions,
o
Limit
the 2014 Cost of Living, (COL) salary increases to 6% (3% in Jan and 3% in Jul)
and stop automatic COL increases for some highly paid staff members.
o
Reduce
the capital budget and defer some capital items until 2015 or thereafter.
o
Re-structure
the teaching staff and expectations to create a more sustainable model and
raise teaching standards. Due to contractual commitments, it is expected that
this will not bring significant savings until 2015.
Risks SOSJ staff are used to high COL salary
increases and there could be dissatisfaction with lower increases.
Staff Reaction to the Matter:
The school management suggested 3 options to
reduce the 2014 cost budget to the SOSJ Limited Board and the bullet which
caught staff interest is quoted below:
o
“Limit
the 2014 Cost of Living, (COL) salary increases to 6% (3% in Jan and 3% in Jul)
and stop automatic COL increases for some highly paid staff members”.
This is totally
dishonesty, distrust and self-disrespectful because the salary increase in
January this year was only 1% and not 3% as approved by both SOSJ Board in
November 2013.We hope this information will help the SOSJ Board to see the
proposal for salary increase they discussed last year but was not implemented
this year. It is clear that the school owes staffs 2% COL salary increase for
January after paying only 1% and 3% for July to make a total of 6% as discussed
and approved by the SOSJ Limited Board last year.
Director’s
Report to St. Jude Limited Board in December 2013:
Jon (Director) proposed the following to the
board:-
·
Within
this it is proposed that teaching contracts are changed to require staff to
work until 5.00pm (rather than 3.30pm as in current contracts)
·
This
will enable tuition, PD and Department meetings to take place after school to
allow teachers more time to teach in the core day.
·
Ultimately
this will lead to a reduction in teaching staff per student. The impact of this
will be seen in 2015.
Staff Reaction to the Change of Contract and Reduction of Teaching
Staff:
The proposal to
change the contract duration was done without the consultation of staff in
2013. Jon and Jim had this idea of changing contract from two/four years to one
year contract but still they didn’t share with staff. To the surprise some contacts are less than a
year which contravenes the proposal of one year contract taken later to SOSJ
Board.
All staff came to
know about this change at the beginning of 2014 when Jon addressed different
groups of staff at the time existing staff who completed their previous
contracts were given the contracts to sign whereas there were no prior
information about the contract duration of one year , eg the staff completed
the contracts in Decembers 2013 they were given one year contracts prior to any
discussion. When new staffs were given a one year contract it was not clear to
them and suddenly the decision was changed to two years contracts. Change of
contracts of new staff to two years has brought the conflict of interest
between old and new staff as to who deserve more contractual period. A question
to ask , who deserves longer contractual period? Are the old staff worked for
many years and contributed lots to bring the school to the current standard or
new staff who has just joined the school?
Teaching is a
difficult profession and you can’t allow teachers to work continuously from
8.30am -5.00pm on the same payment. At least Jon has considered the need of
teaching students up to 5.00pm but he has not considered the staff motivation
side of which staff ask him to consider but had not given answers that assure
staff motivation. Jon is very right when he says the impact of this will be
seen in 2015 though he has not put clear what impact is that and we wonder if
any of the board members had seen the reason to ask what will be the impact.
Teaching staff know what the impact will be because of that decision and yes it
will be seen in 2015 and probably earlier than that.
Teaching is a
difficult profession and you can’t allow teachers to work continuously from
8.30am -5.00pm on the same payment and expect excellent performance of the
school, this is definitely the opposite of what Jon thinks and expects that the
changes of working hours, reduce staff and add more teaching load will improve
the school performance . You headmasters who are the campus representatives in
the management meeting, are you aware of the core cause of these changes in the
school? We ask you, what are you doing?
Jim’s Involvement to One Year Contract Change
·
Jim
planned to have a meeting with Anna Richardson HR manager in early December
2013 and the agenda for the meeting were:
-
the
new contract stuff (we’re only offering one year contracts)
-
changes to recruitment policy and that you want to
review all business candidates before any offer is being made
On 14th
December 2013 jim sent the proposed contract to Modest Akida (Lawyer and SOSJ
board member), Gemma Sisia (School founder) and Jon Ford (School director) and
it had an attachment of Teachers’ contract with the following Instruction from
Jim
Dear Modest and Gemma,
Please see attached our proposed new Contract of Employment for a Teacher to be
issued from the end of this month. We would be very grateful if you could read
it and identify any concerns. I will contact you on Monday.
Kind
Regards
Jim
Hopkins
Business
Manager
Jim’s
Feelings on Change of Contract.
Another email was sent to Gemma on 16th
December 2013 regarding the teachers’ contract from Jim .
Hi Gemma, Could you
please review the attached Contract. I hope I have correctly incorporated the
amendments proposed by Modest and yourself. In order to get over the gross pay
issue, I have assumed a basic 37.5 hour week, (08.30am – 17.00pm), up to 7.5
hours of overtime per week and up to 6 worked rest and Public Holidays, see
calculations below.
|
Base
|
|
|
37.5
|
37.5
|
0.76
|
|
O/t
|
7.5
|
1.5
|
6.5
|
9.7
|
0.20
|
|
Rest
|
6.0
|
2.0
|
1.0
|
2.1
|
0.04
|
|
|
|
|
45.0
|
49.3
|
1.00
|
This means 76% of the gross pay will be
basic salary, 20% will be the overtime allowance, (time and a half) and 4% will
be the rest and Public Holiday allowance, (double time).
The amended Contract could prompt a strong reaction from
our Employees and we must be ready to defend the changes and explain the
School’s financial position. If things get difficult, there could be room to
compromise on some of the non-core amendments.Could we delay issuing the
contracts until 31st December 2013, so Employees effectively receive
them on 6th January 2014?
Kind
Regards
Jim
Hopkins
Business
Manager
Staff Reaction to Jim’s Involvement in Teacher’s Contract:
All staff teaching and
non-teaching staff know that Jim works with business staff and its quite a
shocking to see his involvement in teachers matters especially Teachers
contracts and make big decision on the status of their job. We wander what Jon
is doing as the school director, we see here being used as the rubber stamp for
the teachers matters related and the school decision in general.
Staff would
expect Jon who was employed by the school of St. Jude with the teaching
background to have much input on teachers’ matters but he didn’t even respond
to contract changes when it was sent to Gemma, carbon copied to Jon and Modest
This
raises concerns to teaching staff why Jon’s teaching experience was not used to
get teachers with better contract terms than what were there before to create
good working environment for teachers and produce even better results in the
end.
Staff wonder how Modest the
lawyer and Gemma the SOSJ board member would accept the abrupt changes of the
contract of teachers from Jim a person
who has just joined the school recently and
doesn’t even have teaching experience. This shows that the SOSJ board had never
learnt as to what extent the newly employed managers’ changes have ruined the
school’s reputation in the past for example in 2009.
It also raises hard question as
to why only two members of SOSJ Limited Board were involved in teacher contract
change and not the whole board.
In regard to the amended
contract Jim expected the prompt reaction from staff and promised a room to
compromise on non-core amendments. This is the reaction to that change and
staff wants to know what non-core amendments to the contract are and to have a
room to compromise as promised by Jim.
SOSJ
Board Resolution on Volunteers Contracts
On Monday 16th December 2013
at 1:06pm Jim sent the resolution to the SOSJ members for approval.
Resolution II
The School
of St Jude Board directs School Management to issue Contracts of Employment to
all Volunteers not exceeding two years and aligning with their Visa renewal
dates from January 2014.
Staff Reaction to the Matter:
This resolution is contrary to one year contract for teaching staff
that was sent to Modest and Gemma and this is racial discrimination between
western and Tanzanians who do the donkey’s job of teaching the students from
8:30 to 5PM with no appreciation.
For volunteers’ contract, the whole board is involved and not just
Modest and Gemma who were involved in teachers’ contract. The feeling of the
majority of staff is that Jim has done that to his fellow western staff and not
to Tanzanian staff.
SOSJ Board Resolution on Employees
Contract Duration
On Monday 16th December 2013
at 1:06pm Jim sent the resolution to the SOSJ members for approval.
Resolution III
The School
of St Jude Board directs School Management to issue Contract of Employment
renewals to School Employees not exceeding two years and ending in June or
December.
Staff Reaction to Employee
Contract Duration from Board’s Resolution III
From the resolution by SOSJ board above the board has not discussed
or approved a one year contract to the School of St. Jude employees. Why Jim
and Jon did not respect the board’s directives accordingly. This tells the
staff that Jon and Jim do not respect the board’s directives on agenda but approves
their own agenda like the one year
contract agenda.
If this is the case , the staff leave the matter to the School of St
Jude Board to decide on what to do to a Jon and Jim who present to the School
of St Jude Board one thing and implement another thing that was never discussed
in the Board meeting.The point is, there
is nowhere in SOSJ or EAF board meeting where one year contract was discussed
and approved but its implementation is
in the existence.
The 2014 SOSJ Budget Request to
the EAF
On Monday 16th December 2013
at 1:06pm Jim sent the resolution to the SOSJ members for approval.
Resolution IV
The
School of St Jude Board accepts the 2014 budget with a projected loss of USD330,000.
The
Board shall formally request USD5,210,000 from the EAF Inc. for the year 2014,
providing such funds are available.
Staff Reaction to
2014 SOSJ Budget Deficit:
The projected deficit for
2014 budget by SOSJ account team that was presented in the SOSJ board meeting
on Wednesday 20th November 2013 at 5.07pm in the offices of
Nicholaus Duhia was $625,000. In this request made by the SOSJ Board to EAF has the projected loss of USD330,000 contrary to $625,000 projected by the account team and contrary
to USD500,000 which has been
communicated by Jon and Jim to all Staffs in all campuses.
You don’t have to be a very good Mathematics student or teacher like
the ones at St. Judes to see that the numbers are not right here. This shows
that Jon and Jim had created the situation of no money in the school. Up to the
moment the staff don’t know exactly what is the deficit figure between the three figures from;
1) Accounts team = $625,000
2) SOSJ Board = USD330,000
3) Jon and Jim =
USD500,000
Most importantly, what has caused that deficit amount which is not clear to Jon, Jim, the account team
and SOSJ Board? Who is responsible here to look after donors’ money?
Jim’s Understanding for the Missing
Cash from School and Restructuring the Accounts Department
It
had been noted Jim communicating with Jon that:
The proposed
accounts restructuring involves splitting the cash handling and recording
activities. We would like to appoint a cashier to handle the petty cash in the
finance office, receipts, payments and salaries. The person could be Mama
Betty. Susanne would continue with the recording of cash transactions and
entering the amounts into QuickBooks. Susanne would not handle cash. There
would then be a daily reconciliation between the amount of money in the cash
box and the amount of money recorded on QuickBooks. Mama Betty and Susanne
would not sit alongside each other to avoid collusion.
The
reasons for this restructuring are:
-
It
is best practice for large organisations to separate cash handling and
recording activities
-
There
is circumstantial evidence that cash has gone missing and that people have been
using school money to tide over their personal spending
-
It is
impossible to determine how much school time is being used on SJWA and other
activites
-
It
is easier for Anna to manage these two functions and to identify discrepancies
between the two activities
I believe
there are serious challenges facing the finance department at this time.
-
Susanne
handles large sums of money and there are inadequate controls
-
Susanne
is somewhat temperamental and unwilling to run the Aruti payroll system
-
Mama
Kingu is the main link between many of our staff and the finance department
-
Mama
Kingu is suspected of misappropriating SJWA funds
-
Mama
Betty seems to capable and underutilized
-
Esther
is willing, but she has limited capabilities
-
Anna
W is the finance team leader and is nominally in charge of the team
-
Anna
W is a qualified accountant and wants to do more accountancy work
-
Daniel
is an accountant and doing a good job with Q/B and the budget
-
Anna
R and I have concerns about whether Daniel is ready for the FM positions, age,
maturity, experience, staying power
-
There
has been a vacancy for a new accountant since June 2013
-
The
department is split across two offices, see attached note
-
Ideally,
purchasing should be controlled by the finance department
-
A
spreadsheet system is required to monitor our purchasing activities and
identify inflated prices.
-
I
would like to have monthly audits and reduce the scale of the annual audit
If
we appoint Anna as the Acting Finance Manager, Daniel will almost certainly
leave. If we appoint Daniel, Anna will almost certainly leave.
In view of these challenges, I would
recommend deferring the decision to appoint an Acting Finance Manager for six
months and continue with the current structure. This will give me and Anna R an
opportunity to address some of the personnel issues and ensure we have a stable
team going forward.
Staff’s Reaction on the Missing Cash in school and Inability of
Accounts Department
Since there is circumstantial evidence to the missing cash the
question is what measures have been taken to make sure that the people
concerned responsible? Jim, Can you tell the staff and explain how much
millions is missing and why was it kept confidential all this time and pretend
that the school is having deficit in its budget?
The answer to that question is there simply because cash is handled
by western staff whose circumstantial evidence shows that they have been using
school money for their personal spending. Jim can you provide evidence beyond
doubt about this serious fraud of donors’ fund as you have explained above that
‘There is circumstantial
evidence that cash has gone missing and that people have been using school
money to tide over their personal spending”.
It also raises a question on whether we have competent staffs in
finance team to manage the school funds accordingly. If we can get 3 (three)
different figures for just one budget transaction what about hundred
transactions that happens every day in the school.
For many years probably since the school has started it has not been
able to employ the accountant except for voluntary accountants who work short
time and leave.
In finding the solution to the
accounting team Jim is in doubt as stated above “If we appoint Anna as the
Acting Finance Manager, Daniel will almost certainly leave. If we appoint
Daniel, Anna will almost certainly leave” now the
big question is: Do you make decisions based on the benefits of the school or individuals
(who would leave or stay)!!
EAF Funding Approval for SOSJ
2014 Budget
EAF Inc. agree to
forward funding of USD 5,210,000 to The School of St Jude in calendar 2014
following a formal request from The School of St Jude board. Funding is subject
to EAF having sufficient reserves to meet this request. It is noted that EAF is
unlikely to be able to maintain this level of funding in the longer
term, mainly due to the fall in the Australian dollar by 15 per cent since May.
Accordingly we request that all measures are taken to restrict future growth in
spending and to increase fundraising efforts from the rest of the world.
Staff Reaction to the Matter:
In this funding approval Mark Cubit has
mentioned the exact budget figure requested by the SOSJ Board and he has never
mentioned the deficit figure.
Staff wonder if any deficit figure was sent to EAF and if yes which figure was sent
among the three deficit figures that
are in existence.
This is what Mark Cubit has asked the
management to do: “Accordingly
we request that all measures are taken to restrict future growth in spending and to increase fundraising efforts from
the rest of the world”.
The recommendation from mark Cubit suggests
that you should not employ new staff / spending more, but why are you
retrenching staff quietly and secretly?
Gemma’s Return to school is Questioned by Western staff.
This is clearly evidenced by the following statement
from Anna Richardson representing other western managers. With reference to the
email shared with Jim, Jon on Tuesday 10th December 2013 at 8:43AM
Anna Richardson wrote;
“Also, as an additional
agenda item for the business manager’s meeting, I think all the business
managers would greatly appreciate it if you and Jon could talk to us all about
what exactly Gemma’s role is at the school for the coming year as there is some
confusion around this. ie. Is she stepping back more into an operational
capacity or is she sticking just to marketing/tours? I realise this may be a
bit of a moving picture, but it would be good for us to understand as she seems
to be more involved now than when Shean was here”.
Thanks, Anna
Anna Richardson
HR Manager
Staff Reaction on Westerners Questioning Gemma’s Return to School
Up to this moment Tanzanian staff, parents
and students don’t understand the reasons for western staff to oppose Gemma’s
involvement in the school with all their effort.Staff don’t know how the
founder of the project can be stopped to be part of that project even when they
want to be. Gemma do you know that you are not wanted in the school that had
costed your life several times? Until the reasons are disclosed Tanzanian staff
and the rest of the world will remain wondered.
Implementation of Changes without SOSJ Limited Board Awareness
In January 2014 Jon and Jim started to implement
the changes they have made on contracts and their plan to reduce staffs before
the SOSJ limited board approval. On 15th January, Jon
and Jim talked to teaching staff from Lower and Upper Primary and they
continued to talk to different groups of staff at different times about the
same changes they have planned to implement in the school. In the same week,
Jon talked to Smith teaching staff. Nevertheless the staffs who were
communicated by Jon and Jim about the changes came to realize that SOSJ Limited
board was not aware of the changes on contracts and reducing staffs as they did
not approve the one year contract and its implementation. The staff has
evidence that the SOSJ board limited met on 31st January to discuss
and resolve on this matter at the time the contract was changed and
implemented. Refer to the Board meeting agenda on 31st January 2014.
The SOSJ Board Meeting on
Friday 31st January 2014.
New
Agenda Items
1. One year contracts, removal of inflation clause, 5.00pm
finish for teachers - Jon
Finance
Sub-Committee Resolutions-Bibiana
After
deliberation, the School of St Jude Board directs School Management to ensure
compliance with Tanzanian PAYE tax and social security laws with respect to
Volunteer stipends and benefits.
After
deliberation, the School of St Jude Board directs School Management to issue
Contracts of Employment to all Volunteers not exceeding two years and aligning
with their Visa renewal dates.
After
deliberation, the School of St Jude Board directs School Management to issue
Contracts of Employment to all School Employees not exceeding two years and
ending in June or December.
Change of Contract Before and
Without the SOSJ Limited Board
As
it can be seen above one year contract, removal of inflation clause, 5.00pm
finish for teachers: was Jon’s new agenda to the board meeting in January 31
2014. However before this meeting took place the changes to the teachers
contract had already been in place.
Staff Reaction on One
year contracts, removal of inflation clause, 5.00pm finish for teachers:
Its shows that the board had resolved to award staff a two years
contracts and not one year contact as Jon and Jim had implemented one year contract
to all staff were up to contract renewal this year without the SOSJ Board’s
approval and also this is contrary to the board’s directives to the management
to award two year only and not four years contracts as it used to be.
This is disrespectful to SOSJ Limited board which appointed Jon and
Jim to run the school. As you can see One year contracts, removal of inflation
clause, 5.00pm finish for teachers is the first agenda of the SOSJ Limited
Board in 31st January 2014. The SOSJ Board was used as a rubber
stamp by Jon and Jim because this agenda was already put into practice before
the meeting of the board in January.
All the mentioned items have already been put in place and practiced
without the SOSJ Limited Board’s discussion or approval. As the results these
changes have not added value to working condition to the staff and raise the standard
of its performance, it caused unnecessary chaos in the school and had
demotivated the staff and do not feeling working happily any more. Staff ask
the SOSJ Board, who has the authority over another? Is it Jon and Jim or the
SOSJ Limited Board?
In regard to disrespect of the SOSJ Limited board which owns the
school, it was also seen by the board members as discussed below in the EAF and
SOSJ board meeting last year.
Nicholas Duhia: sought to clarify the
obligations of TSOSJ and the EAF under the MOU. He stated that in understanding
the MOU, the EAF does the funding the financing (of the school)
·
Mark Cubit: added that aside from
funding and financing, they also Monitor and participate in the management of
proper expenses.
·
Nicholas Duhia: responded by stating that monitoring is captured by clause
10.4 in the current MOU and that it is monitoring of the money.
·
He went on to state that there remains confusion as to who owns
the school, who funds the school and who manages the school. In his opinion,
EAF principally funds the school and the Board runs the school. But EAF also
manages the school by being represented in the Board. He went to state that the
way things are perceived is that the EAF funds the school, owns the school and
manages the school. That the TSOSJ Board is a rubber stamp that it is there but not functioning the way it is
supposed to function. He went on to say
that there seems to be regular communication between EAF in Australia and the
school management, and the Board does not know what is happening between the
school management and the EAF. He added that the School management only listens
to Australia (EAF). And that the ultimate person is the EAF. He sought a
resolution to the above and to clear out all doubts about the ownership of the
school and the lines of communication.
·
Modest Akida: added that what the Board decides is sometimes not followed.
·
Nicholas Duhia: added that it is important to deal with and get a proper
footing and an understanding of this situation.
·
Mark Cubit: Responded by stating
the following: (a) Communication between EAF with the school management is not
on a daily basis. (b) that the communication between EAF and the School
management is mainly on donor issues. (c) That there are always issues with
donor management, as there are some 3000 donors. (d) That technically donors
are donors to EAF. (e) That therefore there is regular contact on donor
relations and that this is daily contact but this will never change. (f) That
in Australia there is no board and that the administration therefore undertakes
this communication. (g) That in the recent past, school management did not have
financial management in place and so intense involvement by EAF on financial
issues. (h) That this has progressively lessened because the school management
is now capable of doing this work. (i) That more recently EAF sees the
financial report but is not involved. (j) That if the school management seeks
advice that EAF counsels them accordingly. (k) That conclusively, the Board of TSOSJ
owns the school. (l) That EAF is an external funder of the school. That
conclusively he finished by stating that the misplaced perception that EAF owns
the school maybe due to active role that the EAF played in managing the school
in the previous years. And adding that if resolutions from the Board are not
taken seriously then the TSOSJ board needs to enforce that.
·
Nicholas Duhia: Responded by stating that the intention was to see the school
running successfully with or without the Board. He added that if EAF is
directly involved then that is fine and we can do away with the Board. He
stated that as long as whatever the objective of the school is fulfilled it
does no matter on who is performing the functions. But he stated that one
cannot have the Board involved and making decisions and also have the EAF
involved in the running of the school. In his understanding the EAF and TSOSJ
should be discussing among themselves and making whatever agreements and that
the CEO of EAF should not write directly to the CEO of the school without the
Board’s involvement or knowledge. He counseled that the proper way of doing
business should be a discussion between EAF and TSOSJ and concluded with a
resolution from the Board. That thereupon, the EAF can direct the CEO of the
management to do the thing which has been resolved.
·
He concluded by adding that there has been some damage as a
result of the way things have been done, highlighting that a month ago, serious
resolutions were made by the Board but have not been recorded and therefore not
implemented. He finished off by
requesting all to resolve the issue and move forward.
The SOSJ members were very right to address this
issue because implementation of various issues had been taking place prior to
the approval of SOSJ Board Limited on January 31 2014. So the SOSJ board
limited is used as a “rubberstamp” as
complained bitterly by Mr. Duhia above in the meeting between the EAF and SOSJ
board limited meeting. This is openly
true that Jon and Jim had made big changes on many issues such as contracts,
coveted retrenchment of staff and other policies and later prepared agenda for
the SOSJ board limited to get the rubber stamp.
Among other things to consider, the SOSJ Board
should put into consideration the presence of Jon and Jim in the board meetings
that employed them and how can it make them responsible for their actions if
they attend the same meeting.
Volunteer Stipends and Benefits
It
is clearly stated by the Finance
Sub-Committee that there has been no
compliance with Tanzanian PAYE tax and social security laws with respect to
Volunteer stipends and benefits.
This
was prior discussed in the TSOSJ Board meeting last year as follows:
SOSJ Payroll in SOSJ Board Meeting in
2013
Date and Time: Wednesday 20th
November 2013 at 5.07pm
Venue: Offices of Nicholaus
Duhia
Background
The School of St Jude has traditionally operated
two payrolls. There is one payroll for tax paying staff, including some
volunteers. The second payroll is for non-tax paying volunteers. Some volunteers are on both payrolls.
PAYE is not deducted from volunteer stipends, benefits and bonuses. This is
believed to be a common practice amongst religious groups with volunteer staff.
Options
o
One payroll and all St Jude staff to pay taxes.
o
Obtain
PWC opinion on stipends and benefits.
SOSJ
Board Resolution on SOSJ Payroll
Resolution
XXIII
After deliberating on the same:
The SOSJ Board
hereby decided to send the matter
to the Finance Sub-Committee for further discussions.
Staff Reaction on
Volunteer Stipends and Benefits Tax Fraud
Its looks funny the way the
board decided to pass back the matter to finance sub- committee which involves
volunteers and the same people who set the two payroll to escape the PAYE for
volunteers. It’s the same team decided some volunteers to be on both payroll
and the staff do not know why western staff are treated like that. There is no
Tanzanian staff who is on two payroll as the way to escape to pay PAYE. As far as Tanzania
and International Laws are concerned this is completely tax fraud and
disobeying government rules and regulations. For your information this part had
been shared with the tax government officials (TRA) for further investigations,
why the school has been using the volunteer umbrella to avoid tax and other
statutory deductions for western staffs.
You can’t be a volunteer and get paid “stipends and other
benefits” at the same time.
These are not volunteers at St. Jude but western staff who are
treated even better than Tanzanian staffs. This is why some western staff keep
on coming and going, coming and going because they know this is the only place in the world whereby a volunteer
can be paid “stipend and other benefits” without paying tax. What a place for western staff to be!
This can be proved by the following statement from Kim Saville, a
long serving western staff:
·
Mark Cubit: stated that the majority of his communication with the management is in
regard to donors and sponsors and he is in touch regularly with Sarah Henry
(the paid employee in Australia) and that it is usually in regard to Gemma
Sisia’s and Kim Saville’s promotional tours. Kim Saville added (later as per
correction to the minutes on 11/11/2013 via email) “I am not a paid employee; I
am a volunteer here in Arusha.”
Kim
without a shame insists to be recorgnised as a volunteer even after being in
the school for more than 10 years since it was started back in 2002.The
questions staff ask themselves are; how can you be a volunteer for all those
years in one place? Can voluntary work be a carrier enough to build your future
upon? But also staff gets the answer to this question is definitely Yes, Yes,
you can, if you can be paid stipends and
other benefits without paying any tax. That’s why Kim wanted both EAF
and SOSJ Boards to recognize her as a volunteer in order to get free good house, nice car, fuel for the car,
someone to clean her house and wash
her clothes, free power and water supply
etc. it’s the same to all western staff who call themselves volunteers. With
all those benefits volunteers are getting at St. Jude everybody would fight to death
to be referred to as volunteer because in other places outside school of St.
Jude volunteers will have to pay for utilities.
It is time now that all St. Jude’s staff are treated the same no
matter what is the colour of their skin and staff don’t want to know what “other benefits” western staff are
getting but staff ask the school to provide
those other benefits for Tanzanian staff as well. Staff would be glad if the
SOSJ Board will make sure that this resolution is put in place to have one
payroll for all St. Jude staff as soon as possible and never ever trust the
management lead by Jon to do this. All staff should be regarded as volunteers
because we work in a charity school so that staff can all be getting stipends and other benefits as
mentioned above. For your information, the staff discovered what they so called
stipends ranges from $800 to $1000 nontaxable. After all it is one organization
why should we have two different payrolls? Staffs are asking Jon and Jim can
you do self-evaluation on this kind of leadership you are doing at the school
of St. Jude.
Two Year Contracts to all
School Employees
This
is what the SOSJ Limited Board says about staffs’ contracts in its meeting in
January this year.
“After deliberation, the School of St Jude
Board directs School Management to issue Contracts of Employment to all School
Employees not exceeding two years and ending in June or December”.
Staff Reaction to Two
Years Contract to All School Employees Resolution in SOSJ Limited Board Meeting
on 31st January 2014
As it has been seen before one year contract was put in place before
the board meeting and when the meeting happened the resolution was two year
contract to all school employees and not one year contract as the new agenda by
Jon has suggested.
It could be alright if the board had agreed to the proposal by Jon
instead the board directed the school management to issue two year contract to
all School Employees as started above and quoted below. “After deliberation, the School of St Jude
Board directs School Management to issue Contracts of Employment to all School
Employees not exceeding two years and ending in June or December”.
Staff don’t need to say much on this it is a matter of
implementation rather than discussion. The School management has to implement
the directives from the School of St Jude Board. Contrary to that is disobeying
the Board’s authority and the board has to decide what measures can be taken to
the people who were employed by the Board and yet disobey the Board’s
directives. The SOSJ Limited Board has never resolved about one year contract
or below one year contract which are in existence at the school of St. Jude in
this year 2014.
All in all the school shouldn’t expect the person who is on one year
or six months contract to work on the same attitude as the person who has
signed a two year contract and that speaks a lot to them.
The Role of the Management
Team in Managing the School
The
role of management team is questionable to many staffs because there are
numbers of issues to be dealt at that level but hey have not been done.
Two
things need to be put into considerations;
1)
They are either not been addressed by the three headmasters who are the members
of the management team who represent staff, parents and students and that gives
us doubt whether we have the right representatives in the management team or
not.
2)
They are addressed but rejected and subdued by other members of the management
team.
Perhaps
the three headmasters don’t do what they are supposed to do in the management
team because of their poor recognition in the Management Team. If Jon and Jim
can overrun the SOSJ Board directs, how considerate would they be to the
headmasters?
This
year staff had noticed that the communication is one way traffic, top to bottom
communication and not like the way it used to be in the past where by the
communication and decision making had been two way traffic.
Headmasters,
you had been trying to answer questions which should be answered by Jon, why do
you cover him, now you know that both Jon and Jim had cheated you as well on
what they call here COL (Cost of Living), they have given staff only one
percent (1%) instead of three percent (3%) as approved by the Board and you
Headmasters kept quiet even though you knew it was three percent in January and
three percent in July this year. Why?
Action.
We
hope this information will help the school to challenge itself towards the process
of many changes that proved failure at the moment.
The
staff want clear response from Jon, Jim and the SOSJ Board limited for all
concerns raised by staff in this document so that they can earn back the trust
and respect they had from them previously.
Its
very clear that Jim is making all managerial decision including academic in the
school and had proved to be a bad adviser to Jon. Jon you know that Jim has to
be responsible for crossing his line of his job role and caused unrepaired
damage to the children, staff and the school in general.
Information Withheld
The
staffs haven’t disclosed other information in this document just because they
believe they have shared enough information to help the school. Staff also
thought that some information are very confidential and if shared by the public
they would instantly change the atmosphere of the school, sponsors and our
neighbors Sisia family. But if needed it will be disclosed openly and publicly.
Conclusion
Staff,
thank everyone for taking time to read this brief information about the current
situation at the School of St Jude. Hopefully Jon and Jim will be responsible
to the school for their action within the short time of their presence in
school.
Yours
Ex St Jude staff.
