[debate-l] Re: revisions in statutes

[bojana.skrt at siol.net]

Great!I am really glad governing board had only very best intentions. 
However, the amendement still suggest that GB says we do not want to 
work with you, because ..... which is wrong. GB should make the recommendations 
to the member organisations if it feels their representative is not OK and ask them 
to send somebody else,  not having a power to reject the person. I feel that in this 
case the authority of GB is too big, doing things which members are responsible for. 

Furthermore, I would say that how it is phrased in the internal regulations is good 
enough,  you can just  add that in case GB feels that the representative sent is not really
eligible, GB would suggest to the member organisation to re-think their choice, 
however not  going for such rhetoric as in the proposed amendement  like refuse to 
recognize the designeted representative!  

So, I suggest you through that proposed change out of the stutue and just add 
the recommendation issue to the internal regulation. 

I also think would be a good idea the internatal regulation would be sent together

with the statue, especially if the changes refer to the international regulations. 

Best, 
Bojana 
---- Ivailo Iliev <ivo.iliev at gmail.com> piše: 
> Dear Bojana,
> 
> thank you for reviewing the proposed changes and for your feedback. Indeed
> some of the changes are cosmetic and some of them were very needed. That is
> why we worked more than 4 months to discuss them and put them in the
> appropriate language.
> 
> about the problematic issue of article 3.1.7:
> 
> i hope that it is more a question of misunderstanding, because the least the
> Committee that worked on the changes (in which i participated) wanted is to
> create an undemocratic regulations with ultimate powers of the board.
> Proposing this particular change we were leaded by the principle of trying
> to have the GA as operational and effective as possible and able to make
> decisions that will after that be implemented.
> 
> What you have probably misinterpreted as :
> "if governing board doesn't like the voting member represenative at the GA,
> it will not recognise them as the official representative of the
> nationalprogram
> and request a replacement"
> 
> actially says:
> "In the event that the Board of Directors of IDEA, according to its own
> discretion,  feels that a representative or alternative representative of a
> member does not meet the criteria specified in the Internal Regulations ofIDEA,
> the Board of Directors may refuse to recognize, or to continue to recognize,
> the said representative or alternative representative of a member and ask
> such member to designate another representative or alternative
> representative that does meet such criteria."
> 
> What you have failed to interprete is the question of meeting or not the
> criteria for being a representative. And these criteria, quoted from the
> Internal Regulations, sections 5 and 6. Please see below.
> As you see it is only if the person does not meet these criteria, not
> whenever the Board decides that does not like someone, as you are trying to
> suggest to the debate community. And if you look carefully in these
> criteria, you will see that the only reason we have suggested these changes,
> are because we want to have a operational GA and when the GA votes something
> to be sure, that 1) the representative sent is indeed competent and has the
> jurisdiction to bind the organization and 2) has a legitimate power and
> influence in the debate organization, and 3) Has interest in constructively
> work with IDEA and for achieving its mission. And if the general assebly
> feels that it does not want such representatives at this most important
> and most expensive IDEA governing event, then they can reject this proposed
> change.
> 
> You are absolutely right to say that; "governing board is not in a functionto
> dictate to members what to do and how to behave". It is perfectly true. We
> would like to have the opportunioty to say that if someone decides to
> "Behave" uninterested and unsupportive of IDEA mission and activities or is
> not an active participant in his/her domestic debate program, should not be
> participating in the General Assembly meeting. This is the only thing we
> would like to say.
> I hope that this clarifies the issue.
> i will be glad to answer any other concerns or questions regarding the
> proposed changes.
> 
> 
> *"Section 5.*  Each Member that is a legal entity should consider the
> following criteria when selecting its representative pursuant to Article
> 3.1.7. of the Statutes of IDEA:
> 
>               *(a)* The person designated should, by virtue of her or his
> function and activities in the member organization, have an affinity with or
> link to the fields of activities and concerns of IDEA;
> 
>               *(b)*  The person designated should exhibit an interest in
> working with IDEA in the furtherance of its goals and objectives; and
> 
>               *(c)*  The person designated should be in a position of
> authority in the member organization so as to be able to bind the member
> organization on matters relating to IDEA (for example, to bind the member
> organization to perform certain undertakings or obligations to help IDEA in
> the furtherance of one or more of its goals and objectives).
> 
> 
> 
> *Section 6.*  Each admitted voting Member should consider, in addition to
> the criteria mentioned above in Section 5, the following when selecting its
> representative pursuant to Article 3.1.7 of the Statutes of IDEA:
> 
> (a)    the designated representative should be in a position to be the
> vehicle of communication for its debate program with IDEA and with the other
> representatives of the voting Members of IDEA; and
> 
> (b)   be active participants or supporters in good standing in its debate
> program; or
> 
> (c)    hold a staff or Board position in the admitted Member organization;"
> 
> Best regards,
> Ivo Iliev
> 
> 
> On 10/27/06, Bojana <bojana.skrt at siol.net> wrote:
> >
> >  Ivo,
> >
> > Thanks for sending the proposed changes, so we can discuss them at least a
> > short time  before the  GA. Although lots of the changes
> >
> > are mainly cosmetics and some of them, like 3.1.8 very needed and
> > necessary, good, unfortunatly some of them are really
> >
> > scary and I really hope GA will vote against them. To be honest I do have
> > really hard time to believe that governing board
> >
> > is suggesting such things. I am talking about article 3.1.7.  (I am adding
> > this article  at the end of  this message) which says that
> >
> > if governing board doesn't like the voting member represenative at the GA,
> > it will not recognise them as the official representative
> >
> > of the national program and request a replacement.  This is something
> > really outrageous and again, I do have hard time to believe
> >
> > that you are really proposing it. What are you guys proposing is
> > interfering in debate organisations policy and their internal relationship
> >
> > and decision, what you are proposing is really very very far from
> > democracy and open society, the method you are proposing is from
> >
> > other, not so far away, time and place.   Governing board can not be theone
> > deciding  who will be the GA representatives on behalf
> >
> > of IDEA members, the members are the one to choose and you need to accept
> > and respect that. Do not forget that IDEA is the
> >
> > membership organisation and governing board is not in a function to
> > dictate to members what to do and how to behave. Ufff guys,
> >
> > this is much worst that in the worst nightmare!
> >
> >
> >
> > I urge all the voting members representatives at the GA in Prague to vote
> > against this particulat proposed change and against
> >
> > all those changes which takes away the rigth of GA to approve or deny the
> > governing board decisions, there are too many of those
> >
> > changes which just give governing board an absolute power. If you vote for
> > the changes, it might happen that the same
> >
> > people you voted for them to be governing board members decide they do not
> > like you and do not want to recognise you
> >
> > anymore as representative of your program, if you vote for the changes,
> > you vote against basic principles of democracy
> >
> > and agaist IDEA main mission.
> >
> >
> >
> > I would also appreciate a lot, if somebody can send us the internal
> > regulations of IDEA. Furthermore, at GA 2006
> >
> > was voted for  that  the IDEA annual report and budget will be distributedto
> > the GA representatives far before the
> >
> > GA meeting. Where are they?
> >
> >
> >
> > I am sending this email also to the debate-l and university – l, because I
> > really feel that IDEA debate community
> >
> > should be informed about the proposed changes of the statues. This is just
> > too important to be limited only on
> >
> > the programdevelopemnet listserve.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Bojana
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I
> >
> >
> >
> > 3.1.7    Each member that is a legal entity shall designate one person as
> > its representative to act on its behalf in connection with IDEA's matters,
> > including, but not limited to, participating and voting at meetings of theGeneral
> > Assembly, and may designate an alternative representative, who will act in
> > the representative's absence.  Each member shall be entitled to replace
> > said representative or alternative representative by written notificationto
> > the Board of Directors of IDEA and in accordance with any other rules
> > specified in the Internal Regulations.  In the event that the Board of
> > Directors of IDEA, according to its own discretion,  feels that a
> > representative or alternative representative of a member does not meet the
> > criteria specified in the Internal Regulations of IDEA, the Board of
> > Directors may refuse to recognize, or to continue to recognize, the said
> > representative or alternative representative of a member and ask such
> > member to designate another representative or alternative representative
> > that does meet such criteria..  Such refusal shall be final and shallenter
> > into effect immediately upon notification to the member in question.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > *From:* owner-programdevelop-l at mailhost.soros.org [mailto:owner-
> > programdevelop-l at mailhost.soros.org] *On Behalf Of *Ivailo Iliev
> > *Sent:* Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:50 AM
> > *To:* programdevelop-l at mailhost.soros.org
> > *Subject:* revisions in statutes
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> >
> >
> > attached is the draft with the proposed amandments and changes of IDEA
> > statutes. It is a marked document with the "track changes" options so, you
> > can see hwat changes ahve been proposed.
> >
> > Please read through the document and we can discuss on the discussions
> > boards or via e-mail, the reasons for the changes, everything, you are
> > interested to discuss, regarding this proposed changes.
> >
> > We will propose the changes for acceptance on the GA.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Ivo Iliev
> >