MOSA Leadership Structures: Deciding the future of our organization

The debate over ‘MOSA Leadership Structures’ has gone on for some time, without any agreement. Some have emphasized the need to establish these formal structures, yet others have favoured the ‘status quo’.

We invite everyone to join the debate. Please feel free to bring any alternative or new suggestions to the table. No offensive language or anything that may be in bad taste. Let us have a respectful and mature discussion.

The timing is 5 weeks, and coincides with (& encompasses) three events for former Marist students: MOSA Jhb get-together (2 Nov 2013), exMarist Hwange get-together (7 Dec 2013), and the MOSA Harare get-together (7 Dec 2013).

MOSA Dete Constitution (& Code of Conduct)

MOSA Financial Report – 2012

MOSA Registration

It is quicker to complete the form online (below). Downloadable forms available as well;

Members of Staff: Please Click HERE for the relevant form.

8 thoughts on “MOSA Leadership Structures: Deciding the future of our organization

  1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: How did we get here?

    At the first MOSA AGM in 2011, a decision was made to maintain a ‘status quo’ that existed at the time. One of the arguments was that many members were new to the project and did not yet fully understand the objectives, etc. The then ‘organising team’ was seen as being best placed to continue driving this forward. There were no appointments or specifications of any positions or roles, but the emerging ‘core’ of the ‘organising team’ was made up of Nothando Mchina (who was the meeting secretary), Thabani Sibanda (who chaired the meeting), Herzilet Dube, and Nokuthula Dube. That was not by coincidence as all four had been in a lot of prior discussions and had also driven together from Bulawayo to Marist that morning. It was made clear to everyone that anyone who wanted to play a role was welcome.

    Many resolutions were made, including the objective to complete the drafting of the constitution (which was done and shared amongst members – and agreed). Following that, the MOSA Bulawayo Chapter was established and structures were put in place, etc.

    KEY: The constitution requires that the global body (MOSA DETE) has formal leadership structures, and in 2012 we dully attempted to establish them. We invited nominations but none came! So, the process failed. That is how we got here!

  2. The ‘MOSA BOARD OF TRUSTEES’ idea: As proposed by MOSA Bulawayo

    MOSA Byo are the only MOSA group so far that has implemented all of the following;
    a) leadership structure with defined roles (Chair, SG, Treasurer),
    b) operates a bank account,
    c) complies with MOSA DETE requirements for financial reporting (as per constitution),
    d) holds minuted meetings – with key issues communicated to the wider group.
    Also, they link with all other known active members from outside Byo, and align their activities with the overall group’s objectives. Their effort (together with input from a few from outside their structure) pretty much carried us through the 2012-13 term!

    As well as the successes, they have met challenges too. So, they speak from experience.
    Membership of the Board of Trustees would be made up of men and women with the ability to help the group and school in various ways, including giving direction to the group and/or attracting whatever positive attention our efforts can get (tangible or by association). This structure would also allow us to retain long term involvement of some of our most valuable members who do not wish, or can not be available for the stuff that other members may want to do (mini get -togethers and running around).

    There would have to be a set of criteria for membership of the board (i.e. you can’t just shout a name). A panel would be put together to select and approach the initial few potential candidates (those who accept may want to make their own additional nominations – we don’t know everyone). Membership of the panel will have to come from members who contribute to this debate (here, at, by email or other means).

    The running around would still be done by an ‘Executive’, who may be part or wholly appointed by the board, or perhaps through the membership.

    This (and other things) would require changes to the constitution (which will be easy to do once we have decided on the way forward). It should not be difficult to find candidates for the board – but will be difficult to decide who gets left out (we cant have everyone on it).
    Let us continue the discussion, and consider this structure – as well as any others. Can we please express our opinions in ‘WORDS’ rather than just ticking ‘LIKE’ (undefined meanings). You can still ‘LIKE’ the message to help share it with your friends.

  3. Comments from Dominic Muntanga

    I think a leadership structure is ideal. But, we need to have clearly defined objectives, that are shared by both the school and alumni association. Leadership positions can be a motivating factor for some people, but they also serve as a mechanism for organizing and giving direction to ideas; in other words, there is a body responsible for things. It will be far much easier to support a structured entity that a loose network bound together by ideals. It may be a good idea to organize around a specific endeavor, for instance, we could launch a capital campaign to say, donate a lab to the school and then build a leadership team around that. Once that goal is reached, we could have something else. I think people want to be part of something meaningful.

  4. Comments from Nothando Mai Minana Mchina

    Thank you for opening this forum to discuss this pertinent issue.
    I believe that without formal leadership we might move too slowly in actioning our objectives, stagnate and lose our way.

    We need leaders who have the ability to get members to do something significant that they might not otherwise do….energising people towards a goal…which in this instance MOSA has some already defined goals and objectives set out.

    I also think that perhaps resources are a limiting factor for some members who may have the capacity and willingness to lead.

    I salute the MOSA Bulawayo Chapter for their follow through on MOSA initiatives and hopefully we can have them on board for this discussion so that other members can be motivated by what they have achieved.


  5. Comments from Herzilet Dube

    I am for a more formal Leadership structure. I am willing to serve in that structure.

  6. 1. In any organisation and institution, structure for successful and effective implementation.
    2. I believe nominations based on performance and participation let alone content are key
    3. To draw up any plan, a steering or driving committee are necessary and without them nothing is possible
    4. I believe in ploughing back and as result that calls for a semblance of order high degree of transparent and honesty process exhibiting serious signs of integrity and credibility let alone character
    5. I believe the proof of the pudding is in the eating more than the flaunting and suffering delusions of grandeur. If we are serious lets prove and show it.

  7. Joseph Phiri says;

    Leaders should also be able to organise career guidance symposiums and engage the corporate world to take up Marist students during holidays so they may experience work environments of their dream career, arrange for mentorships.

    The executive structure will oversee all the activities of MOSA. Elected leaders should at least once in their term of office be prepared to travel to the school to make presentations or least delegate to a representative.

    My suggestion on the leadership structure is based on the diversity and spread of former Marist students across the globe: each country of region should have subcommittees and a leader/s of each subcommittee will be in the executive leadership

  8. Herzilet Dube says;

    My suggestion is that an email address must be set up so that those who want to be in MOSA leadership must submit their CVs.

Leave a comment