Bob Alexander
Chief Operating Officer
Cambodian Children’s Fund
2416 Santa Monica Boulevarde
PMB 833
3rd August 2014
Dear
Bob
I am
a filmmaker and journalist who has, for a few years now, been trying to obtain
from Scott Neeson answers to a few questions. He not only refuses to answer
questions from myself but refuses invitations to be interviewed by other
journalists who have similar questions to ask.
Upon
your appointment as Chief Operating Officer, Scott had the following to say
about you:
“Bob's experience will ensure our donors receive
a high degree of transparency and accountability, with an assurance of good
governance and sustainability."
Given
Scott’s own lack of commitment to the precepts of transparency and
accountability, his refusal to answer questions of the kind that sponsors and
donors have a right to ask, let me put some of these questions to yourself and
see if I have more luck:
- Did
Mr Andrew (Twiggy) Forrest give $1 million of FMG shares to the Cambodian
Children’s Fund?
- What
is Scott Neeson’s wage this year for the role he plays in running CCF?
- What
is your own wage as Chief Operating Officer?
- What
remuneration do members of the CCF Board receive per annum?
- What
is the wage of CCF teachers, cleaners
and others involved in the day to day running of CCF?
- Has
CCF bought land in Steung Meanchey with money provided by sponsors and donors?
- Has
CCF built homes on this land?
- Does
CCF rent these homes to families who have children living in any one of CCF’s
institutional residences?
- If
CCF is renting homes to the parents of CCF kids, how much rent are they
required to pay?
- How
many children sleep in each of CCF’s dormitories?
- How
many sponsors paying $140 a month does CCF have?
- How
much of this $140 a month goes to helping support the families of the kids
living with CCF.
There
are many other questions to be found on my blog – not just my own but those of
others with an interest in the work being done by CCF:
http://cambodianchildrensfund.blogspot.com/
best
wishes
James
Ricketson
ABC Australia will broadcast a program, this Wed, that will expose the orphanage/rescue business in Cambodia for what it is. At least, let's hope it does. More importantly, let's hope that those in a position to stop these scams (r at least deter them) do so. I include in this list the Australian Embassy in Cambodia (useless as tits on a bull in this department), DFAT and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Hon Julie Bishop. The loopholes that enable such scams to continue need to be closed. It is inappropriate (to say the least) for Australian tax-payers to be supporting these scams with their tax-deductible donations.
ReplyDeleteThe following, taken from the Cambodia 440 blog, hits the nail on the head:
"One of the odd things about the orphanage business in Cambodia, a lot like the Somaly Mam story, is how long it went on, with knowing people here in Cambodia speaking loudly about the abuses and lies, yet those voices were ignored while the western press, western framing, western money and western volunteers fed and drove the growth of the orphanage game for a decade.
I wonder what next. Will the western press take a look at itself and the way it covers these 'poor brown people/western savior' stories? If Somaly Mam is any indication, no. Will this lead to a reframing of the issues that involves more money for westerners to help poor Cambodian children? I suspect so. Will Cambodian children ever see a significant amount of the money being raised and spent in their name? I suspect not.
To sound a bit rainbows and unicorns, I wonder what it happen if all the money ever donated, raised, spent by governments, voluntourists, NGOs and bleedhearts to 'help' poor Cambodians via some outside savior were simply pooled and divvied up amongst poor Cambodians."
CCF is not an orphanage, fuckwit!
DeleteTo all intents and purposes CCF functions as an 'orphanage' in that most of the kids resident in dormitories at CCF have mums and dads, of one of these.
DeleteThe following quote from Cambodia 440 (from which I have been banned for asking Scott Neeson difficult questions!) may be of interest:
"I'm not going to suggest a miracle will happen, but the Oz media is not all that predictable.
I'd suggest that there are several reporters with ethics that once made aware of this matter will take it on board as a private crusade.
It's quite possible that a few empires built on the "Bleeding Heart Syndrome"will collapse over the next 18 months. Just my thoughts.
Most CCF kids don't live at CCF, they just study there. And most kids that do live there go home at least once a week. It's more like a boarding school.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this piece of information. If it is true, why does Scott not simply come out and say so? Why not provide a few figures? X kids live in CCF dormitories and Y kids live with their parents and just come to school at CCF? The next question is: "Do the kids who are living with their families and simply coming to CCF school have $140 a month sponsors? And if so, is this sponsorship money going to the families?"
DeleteIf you are looking for the 'smoking gun', Mr Ricketson, ask Bob Alexander about contracts between CCF and the parents of children who have been sponsored and contracts between CCF and members of staff.
ReplyDeleteI have met parents who have signed contracts with CCF but do not know what they signed. They have no way of knowing what they signed because they were not given copies of the 'contract.' I have met parents who say they signed nothing or don't remember signing anything. One fact is pretty clear, however 0 namely that it is impossible to get hold of a copy of the standard contract that CCF gets parents to sign before agreeing to take care of their kids. This is a breach of the Australian Council for International Development Code of Conduct. And why, you may wonder, does this matter? Because the Cambodian Children's Fund is quite substantially funded by the Australian-based NGO - the Global Development Group (GDG). GDG receives a commission of between 5% and 7% of all tax-decuctible donations passed on to CCF and so has a vested financial interested in keeping the money flowing. Unfortunately, GDG also has certain obligations to (a) stakeholders (the recipients of AusAID approved aid and (b) to the ACFID Code of Conduct. AusAID, DFAT and ACFID are seemingly unconcerned by GDG's breaches or they would, by now, have insisted that GDG provide 'stakeholders' with copies of their 'contracts' so that they know what they have signed up for and what they must do to get their children back. With no knowledge of what is in these 'contracts' the parents are in a no-man's land, with no knowledge of their rights. A shameful situation.
DeleteAs for the contracts that CCF enters into with staff, these are likewise top-secret and the mere mention of their existence cause disquiet in former staff members when asked. What is going on here? Why are these 'contracts' not out in the public domain? If you are reading this, Bob Alexander (as I am sure you are) please be true to your commitment to transparency and accountability and make these 'contracts' available to parents, sponsors and donors, journalists and the public.
The reason why CCF will fight tooth and nail to prevent anyone from obtaining a copy of any of their contracts is that they would not stand up in a Cambodian court of law, let alone in a proper court of law. The contracts have only one aim - to intimidate those who sight them (always poor people, most of whom cannot read or write) into believing that they will go to jail if they challenge CCF in any way.
DeleteA definition of a 'contract':
Delete"A contract is a legally binding or valid agreement between two parties. The law will consider a contract to be valid if the agreement contains all of the following elements: offer and acceptance; an intention between the parties to create binding relations."
The only way that any contract can be declared valid or invalid is if a third party (usually a court of law) views and assesses the contract. If no copies of contracts can be produced between CFF and either staff or parents of children it is impossible for anyone to know whether these contracts have any legal weight or not.
I think you will find, if you check Mr Ricketson, that it is against the law in the United States for one party to a contract to be denied a copy of that contract by the other party. I think you will also find that the Cambodian Children's Fund is an incorporated company in the United States so that if CCF were to refuse to supply a copy of contracts to those with whom CCF has entered into a contract, CCF would be in breach of US contract law. Don't take my word for it but it might be worth checking out.
DeleteGDG Global Development Group is an Australian is another grubby firm making millions charging 9% commission on charity money transfers from Australia to Cambodia and in bed with CCF Jim McCabe is rotten to the core demanding kickback commissions from CCFsuppliers and contractors, maybe its the last cash crab before their kiddy empire comes crashing down. PM
ReplyDeleteI have now been given 3 different quotes for the amount the Global Development Group takes in commission for the monies it passes on to NGOs such at the Cambodian Children's Fund, HAGAR and Citipointe church's 'SHE Rescue Home' - 5%, 7% and 9%.
DeleteI will write to Geoff Armstrong, Executive Director of the Global Development Group, and ask him which figure is the correct one. Mr Armstrong's commitment to the precepts of transparency and accountability is on a par with Scott Neeson's - namely, zero.
As far as I can tell, from my research to date, the Global Development Group's sole purpose for existence is to get commissions for pumping money into dodgy NGOs - like HAGAR< CCF and Citipointe church's 'SHE Rescue Home'. I am often asked if I am worried about being sued for making such statements. My answer is no. These NGOs do not want anyone looking too closely at their operations and certainly do not want mainstream journalists asking the kinds of questions I am asking. To sue me would risk the possibility of unwanted publicity.