Unconfirmed minutes of the 22nd General Assembly

Estoril, 18-19 November 2008

1. Opening of the meeting

The Chair welcomed the delegates, especially the delegates from GAC, the accreditation body of Georgia who were invited to attend the meeting for the first time as observers.

He reminded the members that, according to the rules, nominations for the Chair of the Horizontal Harmonization Committee (HHC) and for a member of the Financial Oversight Committee (FOC) could be accepted, by the Secretariat, until the lunch break of the first day of the General Assembly.

The Chair also informed the delegates that reports from several stakeholder organisations would be received, with pleasure, during the final part of the meeting.

The Chair then communicated to the GA that apologies had been received from EURAMET and IANZ and he invited a roll call.

Finally, he indicated that, pursuant to the procedure proposed by the EX for the decision-making process at GA meetings, a draft list of resolutions would be made available at lunch time for the members’ consideration. Voting on the resolutions, as formal endorsement of the decisions taken during the meeting and reported in the present minutes, would take place at the very end of the meeting on the second day.

The host, L. Cortez (LC), gave a welcome speech in the name of IPAC and of the Portuguese competent National Authorities. He also informed about the practical and social arrangements for the GA.

The Chair thanked LC and opened the meeting.

2. Approval of the Agenda

The Chair invited comments on the proposed Agenda for the meeting.

He indicated that item 7.1.1 c) “Development of the EA Secretariat and related issues”, that was initially tabled for decision, would eventually be tabled for discussion only, but with a view to get the GA approval on the proposed way forward.

He added that the EX suggested that item 10.3 “MoU with APLAC”, that was tabled for information, would eventually be discussed with a view to make a decision on giving mandate to the EX to achieve the signing process, provided the GA can agree on the proposed draft MoU.

In response to a suggestion by CEOC, it was agreed that the issue of the controversial paper called “What is accreditation?”, developed within ILAC and IAF, would be addressed under item 10 “International issues”.

With these comments and changes, the agenda was approved.

3. Review and approval of the minutes of the 21st meeting of the EA General Assembly in Tallinn

The Chair reported that the Secretariat had received only one comment from EAK requesting to correct a spelling mistake in the name and title of the Vice Secretary of the Ministry for Economic Affairs and Communication and Chair of EAK Accreditation Board who opened the meeting in Tallinn.

He added that an additional change would be introduced under item 13.3 “Report of EURACHEM”, to clarify that a short oral report had been given to the GA.

The minutes were finally approved.

4. Communications

4.1 Information to the members on the procedure proposed by the Executive Committee for decision making at GA meetings and others

As indicated at the opening of the meeting, the Chair reported that the Executive Committee was submitting a procedure for the decision-making process at GA meetings for approval with immediate implementation at this very meeting.

There was no objection and the procedure was approved.

5. Report from the Chairman

The Chair made a review of the report which had been distributed with the papers for the meeting, highlighting the main issues and pointing especially to those being raised and discussed during the GA. He invited the participants to look at the activity report provided by the Secretariat in order to get additional, more detailed, information on the developments within the Technical Committees.

Moreover, the Chair pointed out that the draft budget 2009 that had been distributed for the meeting, was based on an increase in the costs charged by RvA of 2,5%. However, RvA has later informed the Secretariat after publication of the document that the forecasted increase should be changed to 4%.

As a consequence, a revised version of the draft budget taking account of the revised rate will be distributed and presented to the GA during the meeting.

The Chair commented on the document put forward to the GA for information, that outlines an estimate of the costs for EA becoming an employer in Paris. The estimate covers the costs for transfer, to an external service provider, of the accomplishments related to the management of the staff (monthly pay slips, quarterly payroll taxes, annual declarations, etc.), as well to the keeping and administration of accounts (accounting software, periodic checks, preparation of financial statements, etc), such services being presently partly provided by COFRAC. The Chair underlined that the above will contribute to enhancing the independence and effectiveness of operation of EA, besides enabling saving the 20 % non deductible VAT on COFRAC labour costs (approx. 40.000 €).

The Chair clarified that the provided estimate only shows the above additional external costs (approx. 10.000 € per year) but doesn’t take into account the aspects of legal liability related to EA becoming an employer and hiring the present staff of the Central Secretariat in Paris, including financial risks. This is the reason why the Executive decided to investigate further the additional implications of such a move, the objective being to complete the study for further consideration at its first meeting in January 2009.

The Chair added that the draft budget 2009 presented does not take into account any financial contribution that might be received from the European Commission, that, as developed by Project Team 3 led by P. Stennett, would allow for the reimbursement of the costs incurred by the EA officers and other liaison persons actively involved in the EA and international works, as well for partially covering other costs related to the EA activities.

As a conclusion of his report, the Chair expressed his thanks to the full membership and stakeholder partners, paying tribute also to the high dedication, involvement and enthusiasm showed by the Secretariat teams, both in Paris and Utrecht.

6. Operational issues

6.1 Document approval

6.1.1 Ratification of ballots completed since the last General Assembly meeting

The Chair reviewed briefly the summary of the results that had been distributed with the papers for the meeting. This did not raise any comment and the results of the ballots were ratified.

6.1.2 MoU with CEN/CENELEC

The draft of a MoU between EA and CEN/CENELEC had been distributed with the papers for the meeting. The Chair informed the meeting that the MoU will be signed by EA on the one side and by CEN and CENELEC jointly on the other side, at an event that is planned to take place on January 21st 2009 in Brussels. There was no objection and the MoU was approved..

6.1.3  MoU with EEPCA


The Chair reported that the draft MoU, which was distributed with the papers for the meeting, would be signed in the evening, during the gala dinner organised by IPAC. He also indicated that the delegate from EEPCA, Valberto Baggio, Chairman of EEPCA, would make a short presentation on the second day of the GA. There was no objection and the MoU was approved.

6.2 Termination of the membership status of DATECH

The Chair reminded the meeting that some time ago, EA was informed that DATECH had merged into TGA Gmbh, the activities of DATECH being incorporated into TGA. This merge shows a positive move in the establishment of a unified AB in Germany and was received with appreciation by EA.

The change should now be reflected formally in the EA membership and related EA publications.

The GA approved.

7. Strategic and policy issues

7.1 EA Development Plan for the years 2007-2013

7.1.1 Implementation of the Project Teams proposals endorsed at the previous meetings of the General Assembly: progress report

a) Revision of the EA Articles of Association and Rules of Procedure

The Chair introduced the agenda item, stating that the submitted documents were the result of the work of an internal TFG of the EX and they were not necessarily reflecting a common position in the Committee.

He emphasized that the revision of the Articles and Rules of Procedure represent a key strategic stake, as both documents have a major impact on the organisation and operation of EA.

Besides aligning with the new role of EA set forth by Regulation (EC) 756/2008, the proposed revision should aim to improve the EA structure and EA working practices and turn the Association into a more professional one, enhancing its visibility outside and demonstrating its capabilities to properly manage its new role and fulfil the new obligations and responsibilities as set forth by the above Regulation and the related Guidelines for cooperation between EA, the EC, EFTA and the competent National Authorities.

The Chair then invited the delegates to feedback their comments to the Secretariat as soon as possible, as the plans are for the EX to review all the comments and revise the draft at its upcoming meeting at the end of January 2009, for a final draft to be, possibly, submitted to the GA for approval in May 2009.

Moreover the Chair informed that the EX had been considering the possibility to hold an Extraordinary GA that would be concentrated in full on discussing the new drafts of the AoA and RoP, suggested dates being April 20th or 21st 2009, possibly in Brussels.

The EFTA representative, T.N. Thomassen, kindly indicated that EFTA would be pleased to host the extraordinary GA meeting, provided the facilities are available in EFTA at that time, which he promised to check and confirm as soon as possible.

The Chair thanked Mr. Thomassen and promised to come back to him as soon as the extraordinary meeting would have been confirmed.

Concluding his introduction, besides renewing the invitation for written contributions, the Chair invited general, immediate, comments from the delegates (if any), with special reference to both the main principles underlying the proposed revision and the proposed revision process.

There were several comments.

N. Van Laethem (NvL) suggested that the EX should organise a round of comments by email and supported that holding an EGA would be likely to create difficulties and extra burden on most of the members in terms of availability and budget.

L. Tikkanen (LTik) suggested to start the discussions immediately at the present meeting, without delay or additional intermediary comments, with a view to avoid an extra meeting of the GA and not to retard the approval process.

T. Hauge (TH) welcomed a preliminary discussion at the meeting, he invited the EX to come up with a final position on the AoA and RoP before the GA can discuss usefully and did not support the organisation of an EGA.

M. Stadler (MS) insisted that stakeholders have a basic interest in the way EA is to be organised and operated. He added that time for consultation within every constituency within the EA Advisory Board shall be allocated for a fruitful input to be given and would appreciate that the GA allows the EAAB to have a detailed discussion on the proposals, before a final decision is made.

The EA Chair confirmed that, as is the rule normally, all stakeholders and observers would be very welcome to put forward their comments during the development process as well.

B. Rivera (BR) thanked the Executive for the work they had achieved. ENAC received the drafts with appreciation even if it is clear that in their current status, the drafts have not been considered in detail yet by the Executive Committee. She questioned the proposed process and supported to avoid the EGA, based on the assumption that the EX will be fully capable to manage all the comments raised.

H. Holmqvist pointed out that, as identified by Project Team 1, the change in the Articles and Rules of Procedure is also stirred by the fact that a number of EA documents have been updated in the meantime or are being updated. He added that overall there is nothing in the proposed changes which should be seen as really critical.

V. Andersen, member of the TFG of the EX in charge of the revision, thanked the members intervened so far for their positive comments to the proposals put forward. He advocated that the ultimate objective should be to adopt final drafts at the 23rd meeting of the GA in May 2009.

J. McMillan (J.McM) commented that the proposals, as they stand, would create huge difficulties for the EC when it would come to negotiating with EA, as it would be much harder to discuss with a full Committee rather than with one or two individuals duly mandated.

He recommended that EA should seek to achieve the appropriate balance between the powers of the EX and those of the Chair. Putting all the responsibilities, including for the day-to-day operations, on a Committee may not be the best solution to improve efficiency and effectiveness in the end.

D. Pierre (DP) supported J.McM’s statement and added that the proposal would also create difficulties for the operation of the Secretariat itself. Having the whole Executive responsible for managing the Secretariat would not work efficiently in practice.

J. McMillan added that the point is not to challenge the overall organisation but the new distribution of roles. The proposed Articles and RoP create new relationships between the Chair and the EX in operational terms that are questionable. That the Chair appears to be there only to chair the GA meetings does not make much sense and there is no point in having the Chair acting as if he/she were outside EA.