MOVING FORWARD AND LETTING GO (Q&A No. 2) Print
Written by admin   
Friday, 08 May 2009 03:32
This is the 2nd in a series of Questions and Answers being issued in connection with the recent IC decision to let go of the governance and corporate structure of Gawad Kalinga (IC Statement dated April 30, 2009). 1.  Is it correct to say that there is a split between CFC and GK?

No.  A split connoted complete disengagement, having nothing more to do with each other.  A split also almost always connoted a negative adversarial spirit.  On the other hand, “letting go” implies that the action is done willingly, with good relationships preserved.

The International Council (IC) statement is clear in that there is no disengagement from the work in GK – CFC caretaker teams continue working in GK sites and CFC members who serve in GK remain to be CFC members.

2.  Now that GK is no longer a ministry of CFC, what is the relationship between CFC and GK?

The term “letting go” reflects the spirit in which the decision was made – to remove confusion, to restore relationships and to empower both CFC and GK.  This same spirit should guide our transition.  The relationship between CFC and GK does not end with “letting go” because the spiriti of collaboration and cooperation remains and hopefully, will be further strengthened, notwithstanding their distinct roles.  It is a “letting go” but definitely not a “letting be,” by which we mean that CFC remains concerned about, and involved in the work and the mission.

The relationship between CFC and GK should continue to be rooted on fraternal relationships that are hallmarks of community life in CFC.

CFC has let GK go, in terms of governance and corporate structure, but it remains actively involved in the shared mission of helping the poor.  It is an extra special partnership, forged by many years of working together for the glory of God.  CFC and GK have distinct roles but they move in the same general direction, and continuing on with a shared mission.  CFC and GK are independent of each other in governance and corporate structure but they remain interdependent and collaborative.

The institutional relationship between CFC and GK will continue to evolve and be fine tuned over time, post this change.  But a good starting point for sharpening the definition of this relationship is what Fr. Ben Nebres, President of Ateneo de Manila University, has put forward.  The Ateneo model in the GK sites is working well – Ateneo coordinates with GK, secures funds from Atenean sources and network, mobilizes the volunteers, and puts Ateneo’s “touch” and values in the sites.  But the line of authority is clear – all report to Fr. Ben Nebres.

3.  Will CFC members serving in existing GK sites be made to choose whether they will continue to serve in GK or in CFC?

No one will be made to choose in an adversarial or judgmental context.  It cannot be overemphasized that the status quo remains in all GK sites.  The CFC caretaker teams should continue their work where they are.  Service of CFC members in GK will be guided in accordance with the usual pastoral approach in service assignments.

4.  Will CFC’s evangelization and formation programs in the GK sites continue?

Yes, evangelization and formation, particularly in sites by CFC caretaker teams, should continue and hopefully, even intensify.

5.  CFC has many foreign partners in the GK sites.  What will happen to these GK sites?

As previously emphasized in the April 30 IC statement, the work continues.  Regardless of where the funds come from, those funds should be used to provide the poor with help to bring them out of the darkness of poverty.  Partners coming from abroad should be assured of the completion and maintenance of their sponsored sites, regardless of the change.  The CFC caretaker teams should not abandon their posts in the GK sites.  As we stated in the Q & A No. 1, the general rule is this:  Stay put and continue ministering to the poor.

The CFC International Council
May 6, 2009