FF 1 Feb 2016

Inputs from members and staff re EAPN restructuring

Contents

1.EAPN Sweden

2.FEANTSA

3.EAPN Denmark:

4.EAPN Germany

5.EAPN Czech Republic

6.CILAP EAPN Italy

7.EAPN Bulgaria

8.EAPN PORTUGAL

9.IFSW

10.Caritaseuropa

11.EAPN Cyprus

12.EAPN Staff Team

13.EAPN France

14.EAPN Latvia

15.SMES Europa

16.EAPN Hungary

17.EAPN Iceland

18.EAPN Luxembourg

Annex 1) PROPOSAL FOR A RESTRUCTURATION OF EAPN that was presented at the Exco meetign in Oct 2015

1.EAPN Sweden

Comments and Suggestion – Proposal for a restructuration of EAPN

We appreciate the effort to accomplish a restruction of the EAPN. We also understand the difficulties we the financies both in a shorter and a longer perspective.

Concerning the proposal we can see the benefits of a clear structure for the secretariat and also how we could manage finances, translations and publications. We also agree on the structures purposed for the PEP and the Policy Conference. At the same time we can see problems with the proposed overall structure.

● Bringing the EXCO and EUISG into one managing body for example is going to be a very heavy workload for one representative from the NN. The EUISG are responsible to react on the NRP and several other surveys each year. They are often sent out very late and NNs are supposed to answer within a couple of days. Furthermore, subgroups within EUISG and the Group as a whole, are responsible for the overall policymaking of the EAPN.

● Taking in consideration that the present responsibilities for EXCO also includes crucial objects, and as proposed, both those are supposed to be handled by just one single person is not acceptable even if they have a substitute. Furthermore, the idea of one single person to carrying the burden of all the contacts of the national networks and then back to EAPN Europe is not reasonable.

●The proposal, as describes above, isbased on a none realistic workload.We suggest that aSteering Group should replace EXCO. The representatives of the Steering Group should be elected by the GA. Our view is that such a Steering Group, consisting of 9 persons and representatives from European Organizations and a staff member, with balance considering sex, age and different geographical locations, could handle what is now the responsibility for EXCO as well as the Bureau in a more efficient way. Furthermore, the representatives chosen for the Steering Group should only be there for maximum 3 plus 3 years and thereafter new persons should be nominated.

● We understand that we cannot have a GA as large as before of economic reasons. If we are limited three representatives from each network we strongly believe that the choice who to send should be a choice of every NN.

● We propose that one delegate is equal with one vote at the GA, meaning that we are leaving the proportional voting related to inhabitants of each country. We feel this is a more democratic way than the current system built upon proxies. If bigger countries decides to vote together, smaller countries can’t make their voice heard. Furthermore, todays discussions at the GA becomes ineffective and without a meaning, if and because every decision is made before on a national basis.

We are not on this early stage going into details concerning consequences on which body or person who are responsible for what, but we think that it very much follows the structure suggested from the Bureau if you bring the subjects from the former EXCO and Bureau together.

2.FEANTSA

Some very first/quick ideas. As it is an open/informal process, I took the liberty to be a bit crude…

Stronger role for the EOs

It is time to decide how EAPN wants to work with the EOs both as full members and as expert organisations on themes related to poverty that are of interest to EAPN. During the last years many proposals have been made by EOs (collectively or individually) but very few got taken up. I suggest that the EAPN secretariat looks back at these proposals. We definitively need to take a look at the weight of the EOs in the statutory bodies of EAPN such as the GA. It is clear that the voting weight of EOs in the GA is too small. If EAPN is serious about working with EOs it should apply the 1/5 rule (as used in ExCo) also in the GA. The EAPN office should play a more (pro)active role in bringing EOs together and empower them as a collective and individually to contribute to EAPNs work programme. If nothing happens there is a real risk EOs will leave EAPN or become even more than today just paper members.

Stronger governance

Lack of proper governance has been a real issue for FEANTSA which we have tried to bring to the attention of you all during the last years.

  • We need to abolish the ISG as it functions now. It has become a parallel ExCo and makes it impossible for the latter to take on fully its political/lobbying role. The ISG can continue but should be clearly mandated by and accountable to the ExCo. At least all major policy statement should be endorsed by the ExCo before they go out.
  • We need to have proper discussion documents in time for the ExCo.
  • We should stick to the number of ExCo required by the statutes (4) and consider reducing meetings to 1 or 1 ½ days to make it more manageable.
  • Minutes of Bureau and ExCo must be made available for entire membership (members’ only pages) immediately after the meeting. We decided in the ExCo to make Bureau minutes available 3 years ago, but this decision has been largely ignored.
  • We should respect the responsibilities of Bureau as described in the statutes/by-laws. If they don’t fit the current day reality anymore, we have to change them and not simply ignore them.
  • We should stop giving mandates to Bureau for issues that are a bit controversial in the GA and ExCo as has happened lately concerning the strategic plan, and the budget. This disempowers the right statutory bodies for these questions.
  • We should describe in detail the responsibilities/power of the Director in the statutes or by-laws. We should describe what procedure to follow if because of time or other reasons the normal statutory decision making process cannot be followed and the director has to decide.
  • Annual GA has to be larger than ExCo and allows more ppl per MS (NN) to attend – people experiencing poverty should be part of MS delegations (and if extra funding can be made available also of EO delegations)
  • Discussion documents for the Bureau should be put on members-only section of EAPN website and be accessible for all EAPN members.
  • Terms of president should normally be 1 term with possibility of 1 renewal only. Rotation at the top is healthy for an organisation.
  • We should govern as much as possible by consensus and limit voting to issues where consensus is impossible. This requires a change of culture in EAPN statutory meetings and requires more space for opinions that are different than the ones put forward by the leadership. The isolation of dissenting opinions has to stop.
  • Creating of financial committee consisting of president, treasurer, Director, and 1 or 2 ExCo members; meetings whenever ExCo meets; minutes available for all EAPN members. Considering the financial problems and the erratic way we dealt with them in 2015, the creation of a FC seems urgent.
  • Stop using time pressure as the argument not to allow participation wider membership/responsible statutory bodies. The adoption of the work plan & budget 2016 being example in case. Sending a draft two days before the deadline with a WE in between is not a serious way of working.
  • Leadership should respond to any question put by member of statutory body unless the question is irrelevant (but then it has to explain why the question is irrelevant). FEANTSA has raised plenty of questions over the last couple of years which remained unanswered and are now at the heart of our discussion on governance. Answers can be made available to entire membership.
  • Leadership should be extremely careful with accusing members of statutory bodies of unprofessional behaviour. The random accusations formally issues against the director of FEANTSA in 2015 are example in case.
  • Having staff with voting power in statutory bodies seems strange and might even be against Belgian NGO law. Should be checked before introducing.
  • It should be possible to have certain items in statutory bodies discussed in absence of the staff. Procedures should be established for this.

Finances & staff

  • EAPN should make available every 2 month a year-to-date spending review on the members-only section of the website.
  • Creation of Financial Committee (see above)
  • Separation of core funding and project funding – especially to fund staff. Core staff should not be funded on projects.
  • The organisation of the office with Director, fund-raising officer+, and policy coordinator who all have some supervisory/leading function should be revised. Too many leading positions for too small office. Amount of office working days for secretarial and financial support should be revised downward.
  • Adapt financial management meticulously to EC financial rules. The way EAPN has interpreted the rules for 2015 and 2016 has surpassed the maximum flexibility allowed.
  • Introduce salary system for the staff with salary forks for all functions.
  • End fundraising strategy (at least big and small donors bit) because it has proven not to work. Replace it by projects wing (funded outside core budget). End function of fund-raising officer and recruit a project coordinator on condition sufficient project money can be secured.
  • ...

Others

  • Total rethink of PEP meeting – format as well as content – only just to ensure continued funding by the European Commission. Open discussion about this in the ExCo and GA.
  • Consider thematic conferences rather than conferences on EU processes such as Semester/OMC,… Consult entire EAPN membership about top 3 of themes they want EAPN to work on, and schedule themed conference on basis of outcome.
  • Redesign website & comms strategy with stronger stand-alone tools (magazine, flash,…)
  • Keep some translation in French. After all EAPN is statutory a bi-lingual organisation (or have statutes changed...)
  • Allow and cherish disagreement in the network and use it as a basis to build something better…
  • Develop clear and transparent EU lobbying strategy – what do want to get to in 5 years, what if it does not happen as planned… EAPN is to dependent on DG EMPL steered processes
  • Increase quality of political/societal analysis. In this connection rethink the request for EU framework Directive on Minimum Income and develop alternatives which are more realistic and less likely to divert us from the 60% median objective.

3.EAPN Denmark:

The structure is an organizational frame for accomplishing EAPN’s mission and objectives and work. The basic question is: what structure brings most effect to the work of EAPN for the resources available related to our aim: fighting poverty and social exclusion at the EU and national level?

EAPN Denmark proposes a new leaner structure that is simple, democratic and cost-effective.

The structure shall have the effect that costs of secondary activities are reduced significantly compared to the present structure, leaving more resources for core activities in the future. There shall be a new balance between activities and governance. More money and time to activities, less to internal governance without bringing the functioning of the organization into risks.

The structure shall operationalize democratic influences and participation, processing and qualifying input and make output and deployment effective, relevant and timely.

Decision-making and responsibility shall be transparent and clearly. There shall be distinguished between policy-making by members and management by staff. It must be obvious, who has the competence and is responsible for what.

The communication level on policy, management and economy shall be high and structured. All processes and decisions shall be transparent and visible for members of the network.

The objective of the new structure is

  • More project-oriented activities with time-limited processes, specified resources and responsibilities for delivery
  • More products of EAPN
  • To give EAPN-processes a clearer purpose and to finish with a product within a time-limited period
  • More effective, smaller workgroups to produce EAPN policies and activities
  • Increased focus on product and delivery
  • More future oriented strategic proposals
  • More inputs born outside Brussels, more National Network contribution
  • Courses and training for new EAPN members

The structure consists of:

  • Members (National Networks and European Organisations)
  • An European Electoral College
  • Meeting of delegates/The European Electoral College, General Assembly/General Convention
  • Executive Committee
  • Bureau
  • Policy groups
  • Training courses
  • Policy conferences
  • Secretariat
  • Director

Members: National networks, European Organisations. No amendment.

Delegates

3 delegates are appointed by each National Network and 1 by each European Organisation for a 4-year period. It is the responsibility of the members to ensure a representative national delegation.

The European Electoral College

When appointed, the delegates form a European Electoral College at EAPN Europe level.

Meeting of delegates, General Assembly/General convention:

The delegates are convened once a year and can be convened extraordinarily when demanded by a qualified majority of the delegates in a qualified majority of the members and member countries. Between the GA/GC, the delegates is a reference group/mandate group/supervisory board for EXCO and receive agendas, working papers and minutes from EXCO.

EXCO refers to the delegates/The European Electoral College. As delegates also between the GA/GC, the delegates have the rights to ask questions and raise concerns to EXCO and receive answers from the president of EXCO.

Delegates and staff can voice. Only delegates can vote. 1 delegate: 1 vote.

The European Electoral College is the highest authority of EAPN. The delegates/The European Electoral College is responsible for mission, objectives, aims, strategies and governing bodies.

At GA/GC it decides a strategic plan for a 4-years period, a policy statement, an annual work program as well as a conditional annual budget and a 4-year budget prognosis. The strategic plan is up-dated annually in the 4-year circle. The delegates read the annual reports and accounts from EXCO and approve/reject the reports and accounts.

At the GA/GC, the delegates elect a president of The European Electoral College for a 2-year period, a president of EXCO and 9 members of EXCO for a 2-year period (annually 5/6).

The president of The European Electoral College is automatically vice-president of EXCO, and president of EXCO is automatically vice-president of The European Electoral College. The two presidents are alternately on vote for a 2-year period.

A president, vice president and members can be on EXCO only 2 terms (4 years). A member can campaign again for election after 2 terms out of EXCO.

The GA/GC is held over 2 full days. A detailed agenda is foreseen with emphasis on policy and strategy.

Exco, the Bureau and the Secretariat/Director prepare papers and submit them to the delegates/The European Electoral College 2 months before the GA/GC to ensure a thorough reading and debate among the delegates and members. Delegates and members can submit proposals until 2 months before the GA/GC. Amendments shall be submitted 3 weeks before GA. Amendments to amendments can be submitted at the GA/GC.

Comments: Over a period, the GA has lost importance (“nearly elimination”. Paper from the Bureau on restructuring EAPN). In a new structure, the GA/GC should be attributed a strong role and importance in decision-making on visions and political and strategic issues, work programmes, policy statements for the public and budgets. The input to GA/GC should be well prepared to make GA/GC into a position to deliver qualified papers. Candidates to EXCO should campaign before and during the GA/GC.

A member network/organisation can nominate 1 EXCO candidate only. In case of disagreement in a network/organization with two conflicting candidates, this network/organization lose its right to nominate.

All new delegates are offered an introduction to EAPN, its structure and processes just before the GA/GC.

EXCO

EXCO replaces the present EXCO and EUISG. EXCO is the executive body of EAPN. It has its mandate from the European Electoral College at GA/GC to implement political and strategic decisions taken by the delegates at GA/GC.

EXCO is responsible to the delegates of the GA/GC/The European Electoral College for realizing the decisions and for achieving EAPN’s mission and objectives. EXCO assumes full responsibility for political, organizational and legal matters of EAPN including relation to the EU-Commission and the Belgian authorities. EXCO is responsible for implementing policy, strategy, work programme, the organisation, communication, budget and economy.

EXCO consists of a president and vice president elected separately at the GA/GC and nine members elected at the GA/GC. In the nomination of candidates, the GA/GC shall try to balance sex, age and geography.