Moderator’s remarks
During upcoming Spring Agora Rhein-Neckar 2013 Comité Directeur (abbreviation “CD”) will present one interesting and controversial proposal. Many new members of AEGEE are confused by the proposal, because they do not remember existence of regions that were abolished in 2006. Therefore, the purpose of this debate is to inform and educate the members in order to make good decision at Spring Agora by bringing arguments for and contra the proposal.
In this point I would like to clarify the position of IPWG in this debate. Some people could object that it is not the business of this working group to enter the discussion about proposal. However, IPWG does not have any stake in supporting or rejecting the proposal. Our goal is to offer impartial debate about the proposal through newly established online platform which should serve for whole network, not only for IPWG members. You can judge if we succeed.
Now back to the debate. We invited Comité Directeur of AEGEE to enter the debate because of its relevance for the network. On the other hand, opposition speaker is former Speaker of Network Commision, the stakeholder which is directly influenced by the proposal. We hope this will bring quality and depth to the arguments in the debate. Last word is, however, up to the reader.
The outline of the debate is similar to former ones. Firstly, the proposal is introduced in order to completely comprehend what it is about. Secondly, Comité Directeur introduces qualitative benefits of the proposal such as sustainability and improved knowledge transfer. Second point is about encouraging cooperation and transparency (stability) in the region. Overall, CD offers clear structure of the opinion, brief points and relevant benefits of the proposal.
On the other hand, opposition speaker, Olimpia, tries to explain why proposal will not solve the problem and advocates flexibility of current system for network distribution. Moreover, Olimpia contests the likelihood of regional division of AEGEE into the regions. Relevant point is also rebuttal of cooperation and stability which is advocated by the CD. Overall, Olimpia uses good structure of the paper and relevant examples. She is tackling important points in the debate.
I believe that you can get all information about the proposal from this debate. This information should serve delegates at Spring Agora to decide what will happen with the proposal. I wish you pleasant and informative reading. Do not forget to comment because this problem is relevant for all members of AEGEE.
Affirmative speaker: Comité Directeur (as a team)
Opposition speaker: Olimpia Parje
Ivan Bielik, Moderator of the debate
The proposal
Article 27: Network Commission
(1) 1.The Network Commission supports the locals in the region and the Comité Directeur with their tasks. 2. It is composed of up to eleven individual AEGEE members, who are not members of the Comité Directeur.
(2) 1.The members of the Network Commission are only entitled to act in the name of the association, when they act on behalf of one or more of their assigned locals, in those countries where their locals are present, and always with prior written consent of the Comité Directeur and those local(s). 2. They have no financial power.
(3) The Network consists of 10 geographical areas. Each area is assisted by a Network Commissioner. Each local has the right to express its opinion regarding the distribution of the areas, which can be revised and modified every three years in accordance with the Strategic Plan.
(4) 1.The members of the Network Commission are elected by the Agora for one year. 2.All members of the Network Commission may be re-elected. 3The Speaker of the Network Commission is to be elected at the occasion of an Agora among the elected members by simple majority.
So basically it means that opposed to now, where the regional distribution changes every six months with the elections of the Network Commission, the regional distribution will be fixed for three years.
Defend the proposal
Comité Directeur of AEGEE
The proposal will bring more sustainability and better knowledge transfer in the Network. Locals staying together mean stronger cooperation and stronger personal bonds between people from one region. This means that knowledge will circulate more easily, there will be more exchange of best practices. This can be especially valuable for fresh and inexperienced locals or boards.
Additionally, the proposal will create better informed locals and more discussion on level of the locals. The closer locals are networked, the easier information passes between then. Besides the top-down channels, more discussion will take place between the locals on the same level, which means that locals will be better informed, have a clearer opinion and lastly will be able to send more informed delegates to Agorae,e.g. When locals know each other and confidence is stronger, it will be much easier to apply together or regional grants, such as e.g. the Visegard Foundation.
Second benefit is better visibility of our locals. Sticking together and building sustainable relationships also gives room for common projects and e.g. common PR initiatives. E.g. smaller locals can benefit more from the PR efforts done in big locals, and the external picture of AEGEE will become more coherent because one local will know what the other does. Moreover, it will bring more support with the organisation of events. We have seen that organising big events like Agorae is also possible for smaller locals, if they receive support from surrounding antennae. Examples are Agora Alicante and Agora Rhein-Neckar.
Last benefit is more transparency for the locals. In case we establish regions, Network Commissioners will have to state already during the elections for which region they candidate, which makes it much clearer for the voting locals to know who they will work with, opposed to the current process where the Network distribution is being done after the election according to the results of the elections. This will also decrease the risk of having two Commissioners from the same region and having geographically widespread regions that are difficult to take care of by one person.
Against the proposal
Olimpia Parje, working with Network commision for two years, former Speaker of the Network Commision; master degree in European studies.
While discussing such a substantial change to the structure of AEGEE such as the introduction of regions and an official regional level, we should take into account where this idea comes from but most of all we should be truly informed about the very unfortunate consequences this change would bring upon our network.
Why regions won’t solve our problems
The proposal to introduce a regional level aims to fix our long-time problem of lack of continuity and weak locals by introducing a set of arbitrary borders to be reviewed every three years. The fact that our network needs improvement is no news to anyone, but if there is anything that has kept the network together it is the Network Commission and the way this works. The proposers assume that by fixing regions for a longer period of time, the Network Commissioners involved will ensure a proper knowledge transfer, locals will cooperate more with each other etc. However, this solution will only facilitate the election of members of the Network Commission based on geographic residence and not competences. What does geography have to do with the preparation, motivation and possibilities of the people who stand for elections? Isn’t it in the end also a discrimination and limitation of those who would do a good job based on their place of birth? Who would you rather take care of your part of the network? Nothing will guarantee continuity – this always depends on each person, how well they do their job and how well they transfer their knowledge to their successor – all the dedicated people are doing it now as well.
The division of the network
While it is true that structures create stability and encourage cooperation, it is only towards the inside. Regions were abolished in 2006 because the regional feeling had become much stronger than the European feeling, contrary to our aim. The introduction of regions will divide our network into small corners of Europe that will rarely cross their ‘borders’ and will create a greater psychological barrier between the already distanced European and local level.
Some will argue that there are already de-facto regions existing in the network, but this is false. There are locals that have stuck together for 2-3 years, and locals that are often under the same network commissioner, it’s true. But it is the flexibility of the network distribution to network commissioners that allows the locals to get as much attention as they need. Just to give off some examples:
- Locals from the UK have often been grouped together with Dutch and Belgian locals, due to geographical reason. On one occasion however, a Hungarian netcommie was elected who had very close personal ties to the UK, had lived there for a while, was very motivated to invest more than the usual amount of energy into this part of the network and was willing to make trips our of her personal budget because of this, as AEGEE-Europe was reluctant to pay for more trips to such a weak part of the network.
- Greek locals have been grouped together with different parts of the network, either with the Balkan locals, the Turkish ones, the Mediterranean ones – Italian etc. (depending on the situation that would benefit them most each time). At the moment they are grouped together with Romanian and Moldavian locals under a Romanian netcommie, without Bulgarian ones. Many complain this is not a coherent-linear distribution but it is definitely never random. This Romanian netcommie in question even speaks greek, has grown up in Greece and spends many of her days in Greece.
There are many more examples to give to support this claim and prove how flexibility has helped improve our network. What if a local has a problem of working with a certain netcommie – will they be excluded from a region completely? How would you imagine this working in a network with fixed regions? Let me tell you, it won’t work.
There are other ways to encourage cooperation between locals geographically linked, be they under the same netcommie or not. TSUs, National Youth Councils, Regional Training Courses, Twin Antennae to name the obvious ones. And why not ‘regional’ projects such as EaP?
The arbitrary nature of borders
The proposal doesn’t state what the regions will be. Who is to decide upon this? The Comite Directeur through a decision probably. But one CD will think differently than the other. And this is normal.
How will you divide the Balkans? The Caucasus and Russia? Central Europe? Based on languages? Based on cultural proximity? These things often vary depending on who you ask. Where will you put Greek locals – with the Balkans or Turkish ones? The UK, France? Everything is relative. There is no fair division of Europe. And to be honest, hasn’t this continent been fragmented enough? If this proposal is accepted, we’ll surely live to experience this on our own skin.
You may see some practical advantages of the existence of regions, but then again the same goes for a national level, which we strongly want to avoid, don’t we? You may see in regions a solution for lack of continuity and cooperation, but the only thing regions will bring is a fragmentation of our widely spread network, an agora-wide voting for nationality instead of competences, and eventually the loss of the idea that we are one network and the loss of the European feeling altogether.
Loading ...
Guys, please let’s not have Agora spend more time on a topic that is already proven to fail. Artificial boarders are no good. Sustainability, knowledge transfer, information, discussion and visibility etc can be achieved without this artificial boarder. If the proposal goes through, then this would add extra bureaucracy in our network, on top of the already heavy burden that each AEGEE body is dealing with. As leaders of AEGEE we need to think out of the box, not drawing lines between us.
I think Olimpia is making a valid point. This proposition is very flimsy and I have a hard time believing it will work. It just says “let’s go back to regions in AEGEE, because of this and that”. In theory it’s a great idea and if done correctly, could bring the network closer, but there has to be a limit to the powers and lifespan of the network commissionner.
To start with, electing one for 3 years is in my opinion way too much time, and I am fairly certain most Netcoms will resign or become disinterested in their “job” by the end of their term and antennae would resort to self-organizing interaction between them, as is most often the case as Netcoms cannot possibly take care or supervise every inter-antenna interaction, which is by the way one of the main problems with this proposition
It would essentially turn the Network Commissioner into a “president” of a bunch of antennae. The analogy between this model and the current state of the EU is, in my opinion, very easy to see 
and don’t forget that the EU is supposed to sprawl outwards, it’s supposed to transcend to a real “United States of Europe”, which is the exact opposite this proposal would do: instead of breaking borders we will create more. If we can’t follow the values of the EU, which also coincide, by the way, with AEGEE’s founding principles, then what is left of AEGEE?
Also, even if it were a good idea, it does not say how this will be implemented geographically, will these regions be divided based on language, culture, skin colour, choice of shoes?
Don’t forget there will be some (ok, maybe a lot) of people who might think this extra bureaucracy and structure is too much to handle, especially newer AEGEE members, and they will forget about getting to know the european level of the organisation altogether.
I had heard about this proposal and thought it deserves a chance if planned well. I went into this article thinking it will let me know exactly what these regions will be, as a start. I didn’t actually find that out, in fact, I am more certain now that the proposal is not meant to work and it will fragment and confuse people, especially the newer members. I myself have been a member since november 2011 and have had a hard time wrapping my head around this.
Plus, there is something that I believe has not been adressed. We can talk all we want about European identity and brotherhood between peoples but there are still some bitter truths we have to acknowledge. One of the key issues with this proposal lies with division of Russia and the Caucasus in the eastern edge of Europe.
Armenian citizens are currently banned from entering Azerbaijan. The two nations are still formally at war even though there have been no tropop movements for a long time and it is impossible to cross the border between them. This simply would prevent almost any real contact between 5 out of 6 (!) AEGEE Antennae in the region, almot all of the caucusus antennae.
The 6th one is Tbilisi which could conceivably act as a mediator in the region, but let’s not forget they have their own issues to solve: Georgia and Russia have had strained relations since the fall of the USSR, even going to war at points, last time only 5 years ago.
There are regions that are disputed between these countries and have caused a lot of tension and a lot of bitterness between their people and leaders, including AEGEE members
and magically clapping our hands and lumping them together hoping they will get along just will not work and could actually work against AEGEE interests in these areas.
This is not me condemning these attitudes. This is just me explaining another hole in the Regions proposal.
Many things were said here and should be explained.
1. This proposal is NOT to divide Europe, it is about the way how we manage it. Do not forget we have almost 200 locals and you have to divide them into 11 NetComs. This is the proposal about, how to do it.
2. We should not lie to our self we do have regions in our structure already, just regions since 2006 is word which should not be said. It just not official. We can see that locals which are together longer time have better cooperation.
3. We still keep local and European level, no change in that, again it just how you divide locals to NetCom.
4. NetCom is still for one year, regional distribution is for three years in order to react on changes which might happen
4. Regional distribution which we had in the past became just by it self, it was not forced, it just happened
5. First mention of regional distribution or even regional elections is from 1988, but that time was no NetCom and whole network was managed by CD
6. For locals which have every half a year new NetCom how so many changes can be beneficial? It takes some time to get to know your local which you are responsible for.
7. Another sad thing we don’t know how to make Knowledge transfer and in many cases NetCom starts from zero, this is sad reality
8. Construct of region and exact division should not be mention in CIA as it now Network distribution is not there either
6 of current CD were in NetCom or helping as sub-coms and we wrote this proposal with full acknowledgment of situation in the Network
Whether it is intentional or not, a formal regional distribution of the locals will divide our notion of Europe and the way we work with it. Pavel, could you please tell me then what is your proposal for the 10 regions of Europe that you imagine would come so naturally? I’m actually curious. And who is to decide on this? Will the locals have any say about their placement?
What you fail to see is that the few practical aspects you might gain by creating a regional level do not overcome the negatives ones. You are trying to create an administrative ‘solution’ to a more individual problem: motivation, responsibility and professionalism.
You say it’s sad we cannot do a proper knowledge transfer? That is a personal issue of everyone’s responsibility. It happens at every level. Or how do you imagine forcing someone who was not responsible enough to do it because of a regional structure? Boards in locals change too and at an irregular time, some with more or less KT.
It’s exagerrated to say that locals change netcommies every 6 months – that only happens in problematic moments and for few locals. And even though many locals are under the same Netcommie for a while this does not create a formal region – read the examples I have given and comment on them. If you don’t want to comment on the real examples then I will give you a hypothetical situation: Imagine someone who lives in Chisinau, member of AEGEE-Chisinau, who has years of experience as a board member, participation in agora and european events, who speaks fluent italian let’s say going up against a candidate who lives in Torino, with almost no experience. One the one side a very competent person, who could not take care of locals from her ‘region’ and the ‘region’ that includes italian-speaking locals – on the other someone who just happens to live in a certain region. You can’t elect two people for the same region of course. Tell me, who wins and who loses from this? Is it not the locals and the network?
A big problem that you have is that you see the network as homogeneous group of locals, only separated by who is their Netcommie. But you also need to understand that what works in one part of the network may not necessarily work in the rest. This is another reason why flexibility is imperative.
Whether there were 6 former network commissioners who drafted this proposal is currently irrelevant – there are just as many or maybe more who will argue against it, also ‘in full acknowledgment of the situation in the Network’.
Of course, the locals will be consulted on which regions they want to belong to. Some are already quite evident in our Network, some will be formed after a consultation process with them.
For some locals, the reality will not even change, but this proposal will help locals like my own, e.g., AEGEE-Passau, located in the center of the Network, which gets shifted around randomly after each redistribution of the Network Commissioner, which means that we never meet the same people twice on a Network Meeting.
The many benefits regions are all cast aside because of one big dogma that we have, not to have levels in between. Of course, we still believe in a united Europe, and this will never be questioned. But we can work much better on it if we have a structure which facilitates our work.
In my opinion, regions can even help European Integration, integrating different nationalities more and creating stronger bonds between them and working against a national level which has been a development in some areas of our Network. Because let’s face it: In some parts of our Network, regions already exist, and locals work together and try to establish a regional level and replace a structure which is not given by the European level. Attempts have been made e.g. with regional blogs, facebook groups, training courses etc. Establishing these regions formally will ensure continuity to this work, but also give a certain level of control to the Network Commission over these developments, making sure that they don’t result in a national level.
And if you make Knowledge Transfer a personal issue, then good luck. But a NetCommie working together with locals that are already connected through a region and know how things work from there will have a much better start than somebody who works together with locals which are randomly distributed.
About your AEGEE-Chisinau example: We never said that you can only candidate for a certain region if your local is from there. Of course, this will be the more common case, but if somebody has good abilities and is fit to work with a region, why shouldn’t they candidate for that one. In fact, this will not change that much from the current system of elections. But we will ensure that the region itself is more coherent.
About your comment about what works in one part of the Network might not work in another one: If we evaluate the strongest areas of our Network, right now they are in the South (Spain-Portugal-France), West (Netherlands-Belgium) and Central-East (Polish locals). These areas have been for years together, and are now organising a lot of events. We are basing our proposal on facts, it’s not made up out of nowhere.
You mention that the strongest “areas” of the Network are already in a kind of regional level and have been together for years. That is not a bad thing because it’s normal in a way: geographical closeness means more cooperation, but making it an official, structured thing is. Just because they are close together does not mean they will cooperate more or if this cooperation would benefit AEGEE in general.
I think it would be better that antennae can cooperate with who they want to and there is no need to “contain” development just in these areas. It would actually be better that way because in cases of “underdeveloped” antenae you could more easily bond with other antennae located near or far, based on preference and not “because AEGEE says so”.
But the point is that we don’t what to change the strong regions, they would stay to 99% the same with this proposal. The point is that we want to foster regional cooperation in areas where this is not happening right now. Locals that have been together for years do cooperate more, but with the current system, some locals shift every half year. It is this what we want to change: Locals staying together for a longer time so that cooperation can develop between them naturally. And of course, you can still cooperate with whomever you want, but with regions and this cooperation comes much more natural.
There are no strong ‘regions’ Kathrin, only strong locals – I can give examples of locals in the ‘regions’ you quoted which are not so strong and active and I can give you examples of stronger locals outside of them which you don’t seem to take into consideration. The facts you mention seem to be very subjective.
We are surely forgetting the main purpose of AEGEE. and i’m not talking about Peace and Stability or Higher Education. I’ts about us, about youth integration, about gethering us together again and again, to show us that this World is still worth fighting for!
Hasn’t there been enough of dividing, planning boarders, putting a line there where it doesn’t have to be? This soil has suffered a lot! And we, the new generation, came here to prove it! World can be a better place to live – if we all stay together!
One for all and all for One!
And with these words I’m voting against the proposal! Say no to artificial boarders!
I hope they put more effort in thinking about this proposal than the drawing of the map. It is hard to see which pixelated region I will end up in. /jk
Having to cross the former Berlin wall every time to go to work makes me reluctant to be in favour of this proposal. But I gave it a serious thought and after several nights of sleep I still have to disagree with it.
My main argument is that 3 years is too long. No Netcommie will be interested in giving it their 100% that long. And as a new one I would rather pick my own locals, make it my own project. And yes, that means reinventing a part of the wheel again, but you want to make it your own wheel, right? Make mistakes but also start with a clean slate, think (and do) it differently. Tabula rasa. Let everyone find their own Monolith like the monkeys of 2001: A Space Odyssey.
I would actually rather go the opposite way. Connect some strong locals who are good in organizing with young enthusiastic fresh new blood locals from the opposite part of the network and add some older locals that are dying to give them fresh spirit. For me that is what AEGEE is about, meeting people you never expected to meet and do things you never imagined to do. Learn from each others strengths and do not reinforce the same ideas and weaknesses you already have yourself.
Remember the idea that Frank Biancheri proposed last year in Enschede, to ‘divide’ AEGEE in two divisions, two parts of the same coin. Some of his arguments were to help each other, to make our image stronger, to make it more manageable, etcetera. And remember the strong rejection and emotion this stirred up in the people. It made us think. This proposal is a weakened form of that idea. Instead of making a coin from AEGEE we will transform it in a die (plural: dice) and roll it every three years to see which side comes up.
I realize I am exaggerating and that my arguments (the Berlin wall for divine entity’s sake!) seem populistic. I do not think this will destroy AEGEE or even have a very big impact factor, we are not as important as we think and we are flexible enough to overcome it. I just think it is a waste of time to revisit places we where before and left behind. But I do understand it if we want to feel important and discuss about something else during the Agora than the interpunction of a sentence maybe 3 people will read after that day. And in a couple of years the CD can feel important by proposing a proposal to remove the borders, it keeps us busy.
I encourage the idea(s) and discussion(s) and gladly take part in it. We need fresh brooms to keep it clean. But in my opinion we should find ways to distribute our powers, strengths and ideas that come with different cultural identities (the charm of Europe) more evenly over the network.
One more thing: I want to recommend you to watch Margin Call (2011). Not only will you learn more about the Financial Crisis it will also give a better understanding of the decision taking and culture that caused it. For me it was an eye opener because it shows how the lack of public domain makes you blind for other opinions.
Nowadays we mainly hang around with people who think the same as us, online and offline. Their ideas reaffirm our beliefs and we lose sight of the bigger picture. Even worse, non-constructive negative feedback, when it reaches us, also reaffirms our ideas and disassociates us even further from the public domain/opinions and increases our solidarity with the people that share our values. Be careful that AEGEE will not do this to you (there is more than Europe) and make sure that this will not happen within AEGEE (there is more than your local). Communication is the key to Europe.
Niels, the map in question is not the actual proposal for the possible future regions, but just a picture of what the regions were before they were abolished in 2006.
Also, don’t misunderstand – Network Commissioners would not be elected for 3 years, but still for 1 year. The regions would exist for 3 years and a Network Commissioner could only be elected to take part for 1 year for a specific region. That is the proposal.
1. The Map is not part of our proposal, it was placed by Ivan as moderator.
2. Again, we don’t propose have NetCom for 3 years.
3. Yes, we are here to learn from our mistakes, this is beneficial to our personal grow. Does it make AEGEE stronger? It is too challenging to say that we want to have continuity in work of NetComs?
I am actually still waiting for an answer to my question: what are your (CD’s) proposed regions?
1. Hence the /jk (end the ‘just kidding’).
2. I understand this, but I am suggesting a Network Commissioner prefers to pick her/his own locals at the start. Does the new Commissioner need to be from the region (s)he will work in?
3. That is great and I agree. I can not answer if it is too challenging, time will tell.
One thing to point out as an “oldie” here is that the proposal is presented to reintroduce something that has existed in the past, but that this however is not correct. If you look up an exchange between me and Gunnar Earth in the facebook-group “Can we add all the AEGEEans into one Facebook Group?” about this question it is made very clear that what existed before the Netcom reform in 2006 by my CD is not the same thing that is presented to be introduced now here. The “regions” that Gunnar and his fellow Netcommies introduced in the 90s were never meant to be fixed either – but they became as Netcommies after a while didn’t remember to change them and “regionalism” became a thing within AEGEE with all kinds of negative effects, like the “nationalisation” of the regions and rampant provincialism in many locals.
The objection that a local like AEGEE-Passau is shifted around Netcommies is not an argument in favour of regions, but might simply be the result of a flawed way of working of Netcom: why are locals “divided up” in such a way in the first place, why doesn’t Netcom work more flexible and “European” as well as a team? And why don’t the organisers of Netcom-meetings as well as the locals?
What if a local doesn’t manage to work with a specific Netcommie f.e. or this Netcommie simply doesn’t do his job – is the matter than left to rot until another Netcom team is elected? Shouldn’t Netcom as a team not rather see that here responsibility is not evaded and stuff is being done?
Further: no local is (or should be) forced (and in my knowlege was never) to send delegates to this or that specific Network meeting and only that, that would however apparently be the case if this proposal was followed, even though locals apparently have a say with which other locals they may meet in future. It used to be the case that people would simply travel to the nearest meeting, or the one where they had “business” – f.e. friends or project meetings, interesting workshops or whatever. In my time the members of my local in several years went to different network meetings at the same time. I in one year went to two “regional meetings” within a short time, to Poznan and Minsk and met a lot of the same people of course – and that was in the time when there still were “regions”.
Of course it’s a challenge to satisfy the need of such a huge network, to create the European society we aspire to, but that at the same time is the point of AEGEE. And that in the age of cloud computing and cheap flights, buses and trains, one is told that lines drawn on a map are necessary for knowledge transfer shows a severe lack of imagination.
All in all the introduction of regions maybe seem to some like an easy fix to several organisational problems. But it’s not, even though it might sound catchy. None of the current problems are even concretely laid out, even less it’s shown how the proposal concretely deals with them. “Visegrad foundation” is spelled wrong and the regions drawn on the map have nothing to do with it as the members of the Visegrad group are Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary but those countries are in two different regions on the presented map. Better could have the point of the opposition “regions wont solve our problems” not been made: those applications are well possible without introducing a regional level, just like we apply to grants of the EU while we have member organisations outside of it, or to national, regional and communal funds and organisations without having a national level.
On the contrary, the proposal will create new problems, like artificial borders within our organisation. Maybe it’s not meant this way, but even less already lead to it in the past.
@ Stefan
It’s a good question, “why are locals “divided up” in such a way in the first place”.
Most of them are not interested in cooperating as their activities are mostly directed at their own local members. This is the main problem.
The solution I see in this proposal is to at least let them work together in a regional way. If that would even work, it would as least be better than no cooperation at all. But the people against this proposal say: if we create regions, the locals will start working together on a regional level. I seriously doubt they would even do that, but if they do, that would be great leap forward towards eventually working together on a European level.
So to burn this proposal down is not solving the problem. We should look for solutions and focus on that. Now that we concluded this proposal is not going to make it, perhaps we can make it better. For instance: would it work if we would be able to make the transition from 1: a local working completely on it’s own, to 2: a local working together with locals in his region, to 3: a local working together with a local in an other region with the support of his region, to 4: all locals working together with the support of the whole of AEGEE.
Perhaps this is possible by making the regions bigger every ones in a while, making less but bigger regions, until finally, after several years, we end up having only one region: the whole of Europe.
Clearly the step from one local working on his own to all the locals working together on a European level needs guidance, as the current system is failing us. Personally I’d rather have some locals working together within a region than no locals working together at all.
Let me try to explain the concept of the current Network Distribution – because I think there is a confusion on several levels. The Network Distribution (assigning locals to netcommies after each agora) does not aim specifically to have locals under the same Netcommie working together – this is one of their wishes and desires of course but not the point. The point is to make sure that every local has the best attention they can get from the Netcommie – who is competent, available, motivated, preferably can also speak at least one of the languages, understands the cultural aspects associated with different locals, the potential they have and the problems they face. The Network Distribution of locals is NEVER random. If once or twice it was not done ideally it’s a different question. The job of the Network Commissioner is to help the locals under his care fulfill their potential, become strong, and very important – to connect them to the European level – which for many locals seems very far away.
This regions proposal takes away a lot of the fundamental aspects of the Netcommie in this way – and makes it his priority to encourage locals within a region to work together – which is as I have said before very desired but not the only important aspect.
To be fair, why do you assume that locals work alone at the moment? There are so many locals cooperating with each other, whether in their own geographical ‘backyard’ or not – Summer Universities are the biggest example. You have Network Meetings that while usually organized by one Netcommie don’t have participation closed to the rest of the network – on the contrary are by default (CIA) open to the whole network. You have projects that cover several countries and locals – such as the Eastern Partnership project. These are the examples you should be following if you want to improve cooperation.
Do you want some more ‘structural’ examples? You have the concept of Twin Antennae and Mentorship locals (to help the weak/new ones). These things too only work when they are natural, when the initiative comes from the locals themselves – and not from an idea some netcommie had. An artificial structure such as the regional level won’t bring us the ‘magical’ solution to our problems and will create new ones.
You are mention Twin antenna and Mentorship? Does it work?
Unfortunately not, how many of Twin locals we have, it is around 10-15 (or it was during the time when I was in NetCom), how many of them really work? Half.
And how you can say that fixed of division of NetCom’s will kill cooperation between other locals?
Also have every-half a year new distribution can be for people which don’t follow so carefully bit hard to know who is with whom, not forget to mention when NetCom forget to announce it
.
That was my point – twin antennae and mentorship worked for the locals where it came naturally – not so much when it was the initiative of the Netcommie. (so artificially such as regions).
A fixed distribution will most like only make locals cooperate within the region – that was my point.
I really don’t think it’s reasonable to make such a structural change because you believe some Network Commissioners don’t do their job properly and forget to do things. Even CD members are not perfect
“To be fair, why do you assume that locals work alone at the moment? ”
Because there are of course some signs of cooperation, but as a European Organisation it’s ridiculous that that cooperation is so limited to only a few events per local per year. Yes, you can be satisfied with that, but there’s much more potential we can reach.
This proposal is aimed at reaching that potential and showing that sort of initiative I can only encourage. Simply burning this proposal down and continue the way we were certainly won’t have an impact.
I wouldn’t call more than 30 TSU every year, more than 15 NWMs each year, + European projects + exchanges and other events that I have no data on, a cooperation of ‘just a few events per year’.
You cannot artificially create the will to cooperate simply because you have a structure and it’s been proven in the past it’s not the best solution, and it’s proven today that it works without. It’s the illusion of a solution, when the problems should be addressed in different ways. I never said things are perfect as they are now but this proposal would not make it better.
Pavel, how can you say we have regions in our structure? Can you name them? This is exactly the point. Europe is not homogeneous. While some areas of Europe might be described as de-facto regions, this is because they share common language, geography (for example Spain and Portugal; which also is clearly defined by the Pyrenees and the seas surrounding it). But where are the regions elsewhere in our continent? Why would you artificially impose them upon the network?
It is not the case that locals have a better cooperation if they are in a region longer or have the same netcommie. Cooperation is always about willing locals and creative ideas for projects and events. These have nothing to do with structures. I wrote somewhere else earlier the example of a great cooperation between AEGEE-Ankara and AEGEE-Yerevan, which was already there even if they had different netcommies! Just by putting Turkey together with Georgia in one region doesn’t say that you will have a great cooperation between AEGEE-Istanbul and -Tbilisi, nor will it be when you put them with Greek locals between -Istanbul and -Athinai. Changing the structure won’t have any effect whatsoever. It is all about the quality of members, the ideas they have and the motivation. You can change and improve that in thousands of ways, but creating regions is not one of them.
Also, applications for funds are not suddenly easier if there is a region! Again, it is about the projects, motivation and ideas and not about arbitrary bureaucratic structures. The better projects and cooperations are always those which come voluntarily, as own idea of people. They are not created by forcing people together.
And Olimpia already proved your point wrong about KT. If you look at the smallest of possible levels (the local level) you indeed see there as well that often KT is not working. You cannot have an easier structure than your own local level! So how can you be sure that magically suddenly KT will work with a regional level if even in the smallest of structures you are proven to be wrong? Again, KT is always about the motivation and knowledge of the outgoing netcommie and the incoming one.
As the cooperation between RheinNeckar antennae was mentioned as pro for the proposal it really rang an alarm bell – because this cooperation did not need any regions. As already mentioned by several people geographical neighbourhood and communication was the key together with the will to do sth. together. This only works bottom-up, not top-down since the antenna members have to be willing to do cooperation.
Concerning the problem as a whole: Introducing a regional level is like putting a step between the local and European level – say, in order to make it easier for our members to reach for European level via a middle step. But doesn’t the urge of putting a step “in between” (whether justified or not) barely mean, that the European level is too far away to reach for some locals?
From this point of view I would not strive for a regional level because it makes the European level even more distinct from the local one (Imagine the many middle steps of an ordinary country and the difficulty in meeting a high politician – in contrast to the few middle steps in AEGEE and the simplicity in shaking the hand of a CD member). Contrary, I would strive for the European level to be more accessible – f.eks. by creating less restricted rules for some European events (or making up a new category for example just for small locals..).
Another thing: knowledge transfer. It is said to be easier by introducing regions. Can somebody explain why? Quite simply, I cannot figure out how this could be the case…
[...] if the IPWG offers an equal opportunity for both sides to express their arguments (as in the recent regional distribution debate, for [...]
Hi colleagues, pleasant article and fastidious arguments
commented at this place, I am really enjoying by these.
My web blog Judi Online Togel