# 21 Is Scott Neeson Cambodia's next Somaly Mam-style scam scandal?

Bob Alexander

Chief Operating Officer

Cambodian Children’s Fund

2416 Santa Monica Boulevarde

PMB 833

12^th October 2014

Dear Bob

I received no response to my letter to you of 3rd August. It seems that you have as little commitment to the precepts of transparency and accountability as Scott!

I am now more than two months further advanced with my research and filming than I was when I last wrote. My questions of the 3^rd. August are still awaiting CCF answers should you choose to provide them. The same applies to all the other questions I have been asking Scott Neeson this past few years and which, likewise, remain unanswered.

I note that Kevin Tutt has resigned from the Cambodian Children’s Fund and wonder, as do all other CCF observers,  what the reason could be less than 12 months into his tenure? Could it be that he has taken a good look at the operation you and Scott run and realized that it is a sham and that his own reputation could be/will be severely tarnished if he remains associated with CCF?

We will probably never receive an answer to this question as I imagine that Scott, in his own distinctive secretive manner, will have got Mr Tutt to sign a non-disclosure clause in the contract he entered into when he took on the job of overhauling CCF’s education programme. It is just as well that Scott is a master of spin. He is going to need to spin very fast, and very convincingly, to explain away Kevin Tutt’s premature departure and retain any credibility at all.

I can’t help but wonder if the time has come when Scott Neeson should be asked to stand down as Chief Executive of the Cambodian Children’s Fund before a Somaly Mam-style scandal taints CCF beyond repair? Will you, Bob, remain on the deck of Scott’s sinking ship or bail out whilst you still retain some credibility?

There are two matters I wish to place on record and at least give you, as Chief Operating Officer, the option of commenting on if you so wish.

My first questions require some context.

In the course of my researching Scott Neeson, I have become aware of the role he played in the arrest and jailing of David John Fletcher in 2010. 

Journalist Andrew Drummond, in his 20^th June 2010 article for the Daily Mail quotes Scott Neeson, Executive Director of the Cambodian Children’s Fund, as saying:

“There is little doubt Fletcher devotes his time to grooming young girls….The fact is these children can be bought. It’s difficult to stop it. The British Embassy have been told about Fletcher. Many organizations have files on him, but nothing has happened. If you can get this guy sent packing you are doing a service to the children here.”

One month later, in July 2010, Fletcher was ‘sent packing’ – arrested by Thai police on the basis of the ‘facts’ contained in Drummond’s article – the most pertinent of which emanate from the mouth of Scott Neeson.

At the time of Fletcher’s arrest,  I have discovered, there was no evidence at all that he had been ‘grooming’ girls in Cambodia. Andrew Drummond  and the Thai police had only Scott Neeson’s allegations of ‘grooming’, along with scuttlebutt to be found on the Khmer440 blog site to go on.

My first question:

(1) Does the Cambodian Children’s Fund have on file any evidence at all that David Fletcher had been ‘grooming’ children at the Phnom Penh dump prior to his arrest in 2010?

My second question:

(2) Do you, as Chief Operating Officer, believe that it is appropriate for the Executive Director of the Cambodian Children’s Fund to be making, in public, such defamatory comments about another man who, like Scott, was helping children in the Phnom Penh dump?

My next lot of questions have to do with my documentary.

I have done a considerable amount of filming this past couple of months with one very poor dump family with only a mother at the head of the household.  Four of this woman’s children are resident in CCF institutions. Two other of her children, aged 11 and 16,  assist their mother working in the Phnom Penh dump. Their combined income for the year is $1,000 per annum.

Each of the mother’s four children resident in a CCF institution has a sponsor. The mother is not sure if these are $100 a month or $150 a month sponsors. Taking the lower figure, CCF is receiving at least $400 per month to care for four of this mother’s children. Or $4,800 per annum. The mother tells me (and my camera) that other than an occasional bag of rice, she receives no assistance at all from CCF.

You can slice and dice these figures in whatever way you want but the fact remains that CCF is receiving, in sponsorships for these four children, roughly 4 times the monthly wage of a garment factor worker. My questions:

(A) How much does it cost to feed, clothe and house (in large dormitories) this woman’s four children?

(B) Why doesn’t CCF give this mother $400 a month so that she can take care of her own kids? Or give half this amount - $200 a month – and use the other $200 to help another family remain intact?

(C) How much profit is CCF actually making taking care of this mother’s children? And the children of other materially poor families that CCF has ‘rescued’ whilst leaving the parents of the children to eke out whatever living they can working in the rubbish dump?

It may be, till now, Bob, that you could plead ignorance as to what actually takes place on the ground in the organization in which you play the role of Chief Operating Officer.

Ignorance will not longer wash. I believe that only two options remain for you if you wish to retain any credibility at all: (1) Sack Scott Neeson as Chief Executive or (2) Resign as Chief Operating officer.

No doubt if you do resign, you too will be subject to a  Scott Neeson non-disclosure clause and will cite the need to spend more time with your family or some such anodine reason for your departure. If so, your silence, along with Kevin Tutt's, will speak volumes.

best wishes

James Ricketson