User talk:Schoolofstjude

Welcome!

 * }

July 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page School of St Jude has been reverted. Your edit here to School of St Jude was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/schoolofstjude/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 08:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Schoolofstjude, you are invited to the Teahouse
Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, I have blocked this account; please take a moment to create a new account with a username that represents only yourself as an individual and which complies with our username policy. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline and be aware that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose. If your username does not represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text below this notice. You may simply create a new account, but you may prefer instead to change your username to one that complies with our username policy, so that your past contributions are associated with your new username. If you prefer to change your username rather than create a new account, you may appeal this username block by adding the text below this notice. Thank you. Alexf(talk) 11:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

OUR FUTURE AT STJUDE
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.