Notes of Meeting. 17 July 1925

Notes

of

Meeting

Exhibit

-

page 173

af

_"

'' _{i on Fridaj}

_17th

_{of July}

Present

i Dr. Tincsnt

-

Professor

frann, :,liss

_Cro»rell«

_?!r. Crompton, _Dr. Gregg.

CBBV*

Lng

E

1 _Maj

_9th,

_{the discussion}

s^*U»t>»4

_{tc points of special}

Lmportai ; .1°-

relative

to relieving

the administration

of Paris office of

_.routine

_{.;?rk_c}

parson _{to ".jJLi^a—disd^l^}

_others,

_for

_example,

arrange-ments

regarding th<

perc

i . ",, '

Lection

and

equipment

of quarters

for

office,

etc.,,

2°-

relative

to

methods

to

obtain closer

organisation

frcfrw? gLthe diviwiL^.-.o gnjgr.grafts,

in

.iuious

countires»

Under

_1,

it was

understood

:

a)

-

that t] _{E. Is office}

_{represents the Rockefeller}

Foundation,

b)

-

that

Q'"^

_'s

_{recommendation}

_as

_Senior

_{officer in}

_Paris

was

of

the

greates* j

rtance

in the

celoction

of a

manager,

and c)

-U^*L^*-*wc +!iBt I jaaisationof tho

office

be based

_{upon conferences}

of tho

rep.

I tivee of

the different divisions

forming a

sort

of

utive committee

wrwq^v^^ui^j^L^^ an office _manager* It was agreed

throughout

tho.*

the

criterion

to

folio?/

in

tho organization should be

the establishment

on tho most favourable

_conditions

possible for the

effective work

of the Paris

group,

that for

example,

it

would

be

best for

Pal-ia to make the

choice

of an

office manager

and bo held

res-ponsible for their

selection

(although

definite appointment would be

perhaps better

by

Hew

York.)

It

was

further

understood that SMG. as ranking

officer

should

be

_{the administrative head}

_of

_the

_Paris

_office.

SMG. _{P .tl}

.

_{distinction of}

_{title unnecessary*}

GEY. _{1+ Lb understood then that}

_nothing

_{tnore would bo}

_necessary

_than

_an

_memo—

.

ndum

containing

&

simple

statement

of the above

relationships.

In

the matter of

conferences,

it

seems

that in the future it

will

be easier to

hold

these meetingsJ the absences of

various officers

in

the

pa&t have created

difficulties.

2

A-JI₀

"EV.

GEY.

In

the matter of conferences

the

'

~

v

_rk

_practice

_{is not}

_to

_hold

regularly

but

4

_{rail bhe accumulation}

of

sufficient

subjects foi-

discussi<

'..

are

s«?nl> tc

the

\ icretary by individuals as

_the

subjects

arise*

_v^A

A-A^ytf *x*

_{feM USUgddaprißUgfap}

_gggtoagteaa

_tffo&&

All correspondence of a

_departmental

or technical

nature

should

go

Lsion

representatives

_in

_Paris

_directly

_to

_their

chiefs in How

York. Where

cox, _{j Lance}

_concerns

_{common dervicee it should}

_go

to the appropriate

chief

Ln tt*;?

_{York, President,}

_{Secretary, Comptroller}

f

i

example.

Thy

correspo

of

assistant* in

the Paris

office

lid ■; ) through Ids local chief in the

Paris

_{office up to a}

reason-able extent. The different members of the

_{Paris group}

should always

inform

each other of

their

own

activities,

expecially where a matter of precedent

or

future policy that might

affect

all the

Board

are involved. In the

_future,

_programs

recommended by Paris

officers

to

their

proper chiefs

in

New

York

would be accompanied by the expression of

opinion

on

program

by

_other

members of the Paris

office group

written

similarly to their own chiefs in New York. In the matter of

passing on information a^ong members of the Paris office

group

it is understood that

details

of

the program

already

approved, annual

re-newals, etc.,

must be handled

_with

common

sense to

avoid

too much

..„

labour.

Office

:

Tt is understood that

the

office

manager

v/ould be recommended by

the

Paris

office

group

and

appointed

annually by the

executive

Cownittee

in

New York. It is clear

thai

the discussionregarding the office

3

manager

is not a

discussion

of a

new offloe,

but

rises largely from the

_problem

of finding a

successor

to ?.!r«

Barton.

The duties on _I

anager would

prise

Pc ing :

a?

-

Personnel.

The office

manager

would bo fro:: in his selection

and

trol

_°

all the por'

..,

_{.."_-'} prof ' _{Lai staff and}

.- ' ' +> ref

.

. for tho

effective-ness

~.p _{the personnel}

lin c lif

icultixes

in

any

_individual

case would sub

H

decision

tc the vote

of SMG.

._" ■" colleagues.

b)- Accounting.

_This

..

_ul " _bo

_limited

_to

%-W»

sp

oi il typasrof account-ing.

c)

-

?isj>

Service.

d)

-

SI

v

_V

.x S

ric

c)

-

Trr i. " t

bion,

hotels

..

3

reception

of

visitors,

follows

and

staff.

f)

-

_W&VL

and cable service.

g)

_{-^Supervision}

of details of

_fellowships,

i.e. non professional

matters,

relating to

_fellowships

_such

as

travel, etc.,

h)

_v

-

_Sjertyic

5f

bs.

«

Supplies.

j)

-

_Office

rental,

insurance,

heating, repairs,

storage, etc*.

■ p,.i.i?.-. i t": *v r~. "

bed

""

v-

Boards*

Qualifications of Mr> Bakery-. _{l_}

_

_{!fr«. Hichardi.on}

m-

3 r

_'

_{candidate preferred on the basis}

*&EKDA

!"

'ffice

_OrranisatP

(a]

Office

'

a -jer,

(b)

_1.E.8.

Office

Manager,

(c;

Common

3ervic

es.

lat

ion

Programs

_"

(a)

Between

t]

_iifferent

_boards

_{and i}

_{lons of the}

_H«P

#

(1

;

Between

the

different

boards created by

_J.D.P.

and

J.D.R.,Jr.

3_* Nursing sat i

on.

4.

Fell

ov: slijp ?n> 1 1emc

.

5.

oella

leous.

(a)

Suggestions for

better

cooperation between

Paris

and

Hew York

offices in office

details.

(b)

Pointi

of friction,

if

fchey

_exist.

(0)

V/ritiag

letters

to

the ITew York Office

vs.

Inter-Office

memoranda.

(d)

Questions

of difference of

policy

_with

_{regard to accounting} "ts made by the :

_v.?.

_{Examples: Czechoslovakia,}

Poland

and London.

(c)

Desirability

of

Paris

office receiving prompt

and

regular

at

ion

concerning

_P..P.

_{activities outside of}

_field

3C Pari

a

office.

(f)

Desirability

of receiving

_confidential

_information

_from

»B.

and

L.'*.'.

„

.

-ncerning

programs

adopted.

(g)

distribution

of

expenses between

the

_R.F.

and 1.3.8.,

and distribution

of expenses between the Different

divi-ions

of the

_R«P

#

(h)

when

should

budgets for next

year

be in

Hew

York?