After the first part of Proposals explanation, which was mainly focused on the locals, now we are turning the lights on Agora’s deadlines and timeframes. 

Agora Timeframe

Following the Motion on Informing the Network of the Agora dates, Lia Tuska on behalf of the Comité Directeur would like to change the timeframe in which the dates of an Agora have to be announced. Right now the local organisers should communicate to the Network the dates of the event at least two months before. This proposal would like to change it to eight months in order to give all the necessary time to the Network and the stakeholders of the Agora to plan ahead and have a balanced calendar of the event in the Network. In fact the proposer is also suggesting to set the time range an Autumn Agora can take place, meaning between the 1st of October and two weeks before the 1st of December.

You can read the full proposal here.

Proposal To Set All Deadlines For Publishing Official Documents at Two Weeks Before the Agora

Proposed by Evelien Kroon, Jochem Postmes and Steyn ten Kate on behalf of AEGEE-Enschede. When we talk about Agora, one of the things we might think about is meeting the deadlines. Booklets of the Agora need to be sent to the Network at least two weeks before the Agora, but not the activity report from the Comité Directeur and the annual and internal financial report from the Financial Director, which can be sent one week before. This proposal aims at setting the deadlines also for these documents at two weeks before the starting of the Agora, in order to allow the Delegates to be more prepared and better informed about what they will face at the upcoming Agora.

You can read the full proposal here.

Introducing a Preparatory Deadline for Proposals

This proposal was created in the context of the Agora Reform Task Force, but it is proposed by Maarten de Groot on behalf of the Comité Directeur, Monika Mojak, Elisa Tabbi and Joris Veenhuis on behalf of the Juridical Commission, since the Agora Task Force is not an official body of AEGEE-Europe. At the moment, if you want to put forward a proposal for the upcoming Agora, you need to send an email to the Juridical Commission, which will then upload it to the Online Voting System and they will never change until the Agora will discuss it during the Prytanium. The proposers would like to split this process in two parts, allowing the Network to discuss and still being able to edit a proposal while it is published online. The process would be the following:

• Send a draft of the proposal including at least the idea and motivation, at least 45 days before the Agora.
• After that, leave time to collect feeback from the Network.
• Submit the final proposal (which can be a different version from the first draft thanks to the feedback collected) at least one month prior the beginning of the Agora.
• In case you want to change your proposal within a month before the Agora, you can only do that in consulation with the Juridical Commission
• When you will discuss the Proposal during the Prytanium you will be requested to give a recap of the online discussion

You can read the full proposal here.

On the Candidature Application Period

As the proposal above, this one as well has been developed in the context of the Agora Reform Task Force, but is proposed by Maarten De Groot on behalf of the Comité Directeur. Since we have been facing a trend of lack of candidates during the last Agorae, the proposer would like to give the Network a wider choice. That is why this proposal would like not to close the deadline for candidates for a position until there are enough candidates for the vacant places plus one. In case there aren’t enough candidates the Chair Team will close the deadline only at the Agora.

You can read the full proposal here.

Written by Lisa Gregis, AEGEE-Bergamo & AEGEE-Verona

Agora Enschede is approaching and as the past Agora, the AEGEEan will try to help you to understand more the Proposals which will be discussed during the Prytania. These four are about the Locals and how they function.

Improving Regulations on Contracts

Proposed by Jorge Sánchez Hernández on behalf of AEGEE-Dresden. During Autumn Agora Cagliari 2014 the denomination given to a contact was changed from “Contact of AEGEE-Europe in cityname” to “AEGEE Contact in cityname”. This was decided to make PR easier for Contacts. At that time this change was not included in the CIA, so this is the case.

Furthermore, the proposer would like to allow Contacts to send more than two observers to the Agorae, in order to educate the new members that attending an Agora is a very important matter for an AEGEEan. This has also the aim to decrease the number of people going to an Agora as Visitors just to visit the hosting city and party hard.

You can read the full proposal here.

Updated Cd’A of AEGEE-Academy

Lia Tuska and Zvonimir Canjuga on behalf of Comité Directeur are proposing to strengthen the cooperation between AEGEE-Europe and AEGEE-Academy by updating the Convention d’Adehsion of the latter.

The commitment of AEGEE-Academy to provide training to AEGEE-Europe will be more specific. So not only AEGEE-Academy has to provide trainings to the individual members of Locals, but also skills development opportunities, based on Non-Formal Education methodologies, to AEGEE locals, as well as their individual members of Locals. Moreover AEGEE-Europe will recognise The Academy as the official pool of trainers of AEGEE-Europe.

AEGEE-Academy as a training organisation has developed during the years of its existence partnerships and relationships with other organisations, so in this proposal we can find more specific information about how and with whom it can cooperate. This has the purpose to give more independency to the Academy, which will have the right to collaborate with any organisation with similar scope, except for the ones in which AEGEE-Europe holds a position as member, partner, advisor or consultative status.

Moreover the Comité Directeur will appoint a member to be part of the board of the Academy who will have the same rights and obligations of the others elected board members. The Academy should also commit to support AEGEE-Europe and all its members, partner organisations and organs in all the internal educational needs with relevant training activities.

You can read the full proposal here.

Rewriting the Antenna Criterion number 12 included in: Antenna – Remaining an Antenna

Let’s start explaining what we are talking about (if you know how the Action Agenda and Strategic Plan work you can skip the first paragraph)!

The Strategic Plan (SP) is drafted every three years during an event called Planning Meeting. In the thematic part of this document you can find the Focus Areas on which AEGEE will concentrate its activities and events. The ones we will have starting from the 1st of August will be Civic Education, European Citizenship, Youth Development and Equal Rights. The Action Agenda (AA) is drafted each year in an event called European Planning Meeting (EPM). This is like a yearly list of objectives that tries to put into practice what is written in the Strategic Plan. So it can happen that if you organise an event about Youth Development (Focus Areas of the SP) but you do not fulfill the Action Agenda objectives related to that Focus Area, it is not counted as an event that contributes to the Action Agenda. The Action Agenda Coordination Committee (ACT) is the one who controls and approves if the locals have organised or not activities which contribute to the Action Agenda.

Experiencing this everyday, Juragis García, Cristina de la Parte and Svenja van der Tool on behalf of Action Agenda Coordination Committee would like to change the 12th criterion for remaining an Antenna. Right now it states that it’s a duty of an antenna to organise at least once every two years a European Event that contributes to the Strategic Plan. In case a local cannot organise it, it can be replaced by two local activities contributing to the Strategic Plan.

This proposal will make the locals organise two local activities each year (which can be replaced by a European Event – the opposite of how it is now) which contribute to the Action Agenda and not the Strategic Plan anymore. These activities must be approved by the Action Agenda Coordination Committee beforehand. This process is structured like this: the local sends an email to the ACT explaining the activity they would like to organise. Afterward the ACT will approve or not the activity. Moreover, this criterion obliges locals to maintain an active communication with the ACT, via the ACTie they have been assigned to.

You can read the full proposal here.

Antennae Criteria Reform proposal

Six months ago the Network Commission handed out a survey to gather opinions of the locals regarding Antenna Criteria. After processing all these data, Alejandra Piot Pérez-Abadín, Aleksandra Mojsova, Alin Andrei Georgescu, Gabriele Scollo, Kristina Reshetova, Loes Rutten, Mareike Ritter, Pablo Palazón Riquelme, Spyros Papadatos and Stanislav Mahula on behalf of the Network Commission drafted an Antenna Criteria Reform Proposal that is presented. Here below in bullet points the list of changes.

Remaining a Contact Antenna:

• The Contact Antennae will not have to create a bank account to keep that status, but only to become Antennae.

Remaining an Antenna:

• Now locals should send delegates to at least one out of the last three Statutory Events (usually 2 agorae and 1 EPM). With this proposal locals will have to send their delegates at least to one of the last two Agorae.
• Locals should send at least one of their board members to a NWM. With this proposal, if none of the board members can join this event, they can appoint an active member who will represent the Antenna in a NWM. This request will need to be approved by the Network Commission or the Comité Directeur.
• Each Board should send an Activity Plan to the NetCom within one month since they are elected and an Activity Report within two weeks from the end of their term. This proposal would like to extend both these deadlines to two months. Moreover the Activity Plan will need to be discussed with their Network Commissioner in a meeting arranged by the local. Same thing with the Activity Report, but the conclusions will need to be written down in an Evaluation Report. Unfortunately it is not possible to understand which conclusions the proposers are talking about. We will discover more on Prytannium!

You can read the full proposal here.

Written by Lisa Gregis, AEGEE-Bergamo & AEGEE-Verona

As we did for the previous Agorae, we want to present to you some of the proposals which will be discussed at Agora Bergamo. Don’t forget that for a complete picture you can (and should) check the entire proposal on our OMS. In this article we will be explaining four proposals, namely: “New DPPS Implementation Timeline”, “Making the life standards of members of the Comité Directeur and assistants a little bit better”, “Simplify the CIA: Resources of the Association” and “Improving the agenda setting and keeping”.

New DPPS Implementation Timeline
First, what is Data Privacy Policy Statement about? Since Agora Alicante 2011 there has been a huge debate in AEGEE regarding the lack of protection for potential sensitive data. Since Agora Patra 2014 these data have been classified in three categories: “external data” – accessible to everybody even outside AEGEE, “internal data” – accessible only to AEGEE members and “confidential data” – accessible to small groups of people and certain members who hold a position of responsibility (Netcommies, Audit Commissioners etc.). Confidential data are probably the most important one, it would be unfair if everybody could have access to private data. The DPPS was therefore ratified at Agora Patra. Among the new ideas the former MedCom worked on, a transition period was specified during which AEGEE should have implemented the DDPS. The deadline was Spring Agora Bergamo 2016, but the reform has not succeed yet. That’s why the proposer wants to propose a concrete timeline in order to have clear implementation steps in the next two years with the last stage scheduled for Autumn Agora 2017. As mentioned, the part of our statutes which will be modified is “Data Privacy Statement” – article 11, where deadline and specific steps of implementation will be changed. The proposer is Damien Latacz on behalf of the Mediation Commission, meaning that the proposers are the same people who will be implementing it.

You can check out the proposal here, get more information about the Data Privacy Police in this article or check out this presentation the MedCom prepared about it some time ago.

Making the life standards of members of the Comité Directeur and assistants a little bit better
Each member of the Comité Directeur and their assistants who are living at the AEGEE House is entitled to receive a subsistence reimbursement of ten euro per day spent in the house. Ander Guerrero Ruiz, Financial Director of AEGEE-Europe, submitted this proposal on behalf of the Comité Directeur. He states that the cost of living in Bruxelles has increased in the last three years, the last time the amount of money for our CD members was changed from eight euro per day to ten. If approved, this proposal is going to increase the amount up to 12,50 euro and would modify this number on our CIA, specifically in “GENERAL FINANCIAL RULES, Article 24: Subsistence Costs”.

Fun fact: if you check the entire proposal on our OMS you can see a long discussion about the cost of eggs and milk in Brussels, since the proposer used these two items as example of high cost of living.

Improving the agenda setting and keeping
Have you ever been at an Agora whose agenda gets modified the last minute? What kind of problems does it cause? According to Svenja van der Tol, who submitted the proposal on behalf of the Comité Directeur (and on behalf of the Agora reform task force, that cannot present proposals since they are not a body), last-minute changes can cause difficulties for the Chair Team to fix the agenda, create delays in the timing and problems for local organisers because of lack of rooms or materials needed. The proposed solution is to modify the CIA, specifically here: WORKING FORMAT OF THE AGORA, Article 2: Meeting and Convocation, sub. 3. Currently the agenda of the Agora has to be published at least two weeks before the event starts, but amendments to the agenda can be proposed at any time during the very same Agora. If approved, this proposal will regulate the submission of eventual amendments to the Chair team by admitting them not later than one week before the Agora, then the delegates would decide if they ratify these amendments at the beginning of the event. Once at the Agora, its members will still have the possibility to make amendments to the Agenda but, even if ratified, the Chair Team can decide based on the time and facilities. Still “the Agora may incorporate additional subjects that could not have been known one week before the Agora” in case something urgent must be discussed.

Download a copy of the CIA and read it!

Simplify the CIA: Resources of the Association
While the title of this proposal can make it sound as a minor one, the amendments proposed are a lot and a bit of pacience is is required to read them all. Let’s start off by saying that the CIA parts which would be modified are two: STATUTES OF AEGEE-EUROPE, art. 33 – Budget and GENERAL FINANCIAL RULES (with more than 12 articles modified, for a total of about 50 sub.). In fact, the proposers are the most expert people in budgeting and financial matters: Ander Guerrero Ruiz as Financial Director on behalf of the Comité Directeur and Deborah Pistori on behalf of the Audit Commission took care of the content changes. The last proposer is Claudio Gennaro, president of the Juridical Commission who took care of the legal part of this proposal.

Taking into account the most evident changes, if approved this proposal will provide these modifications:

– The introduction of a detailed explanation of which are the general resources of AEGEE-Europe.

– The outgoing Financial Director preparing and presenting the Financial Report at the Autumn Agora.

– The budget won’t need to be published two weeks before the Agora anymore.

– The dates of the financial year are clearly stated: from the 1st of January to the 31st of December and they are split up in two parts, with the first one starting on the 1st of January and ending on the 30th of June.

– The exchange rate is set twice a year and not every three months anymore.

– Reimbursements should be submitted no later than 21 days after the event/travel took place, not within one month as it happens now.

– CD and Commissions’ members can receive a reimbursement even if they are not active.

– The payment will not be made in the applicant’s currency anymore, but in Euro, moreover the Financial Director doesn’t have to present a list of currencies conversion rate into Euro before the Agora anymore.

– AEGEE-Europe does not have to reserve anymore an amount for the Training Course Fund, only if an open call for this is issued.

– There will not be anymore deficit guarantees by AEGEE-Europe for locals organising Statutory Events in case of unexpected loss after the event budget is approved by the Financial Director of AEGEE Europe.

As you can see the proposal is very articulated and on the OMS there is not much explained about the motivations and the changes this proposal will give bring. So, as always, it is recommended to study it and be ready to get the needed clarifications at the relative Prytanium.  You can check the complete proposal here to form your own opinion.

Written by Mattia Abis, AEGEE-Cagliari

Just like we did for the last Agorae, for Spring Agora Bergamo again we want to provide you with a short and easy summary of the proposals submitted for the Agora. In this first round, we will be explaining you four proposals that are aimed at changing the elections and the work of Juridical Commission, namely “Clarifying the procedure for withdrawing motions (and proposals) from the agenda of the Agora”, “Proposal to introduce a maximum fee for statutory events”, “Simplify the CIA: Case Study Trips” and “Allowing Case Shadowers for the Mediation Commission”. 

Now you may wonder: “What is this CIA you are talking about? Is AEGEE-Europe secretly American?” Simply said, the CIA (Corpus Iuridicum Aegeense) is a document with over a hundred pages containing all the rules which govern AEGEE-Europe. It is therefore considered as the legal framework of the Association, and all members are obliged to follow its provisions. Although no secret agents are involved in it, it is one of the most important documents. In the CIA, which you can read here, you can find, for example, the Statutes of AEGEE-Europe, and, in another document, also the Working Formats of the different bodies and all kind of rules (General Rules, Rules of the Network Commission, Antennae Criteria, etc.).

Clarifying the procedure for withdrawing motions (and proposals) from the agenda of the Agora

Eveline Joore, Evelien Kroon and Wietske Jousma on behalf of AEGEE-Enschede submitted the proposal that aims to clarify the procedure of withdrawing motions and proposals. AEGEE-Enschede members start from the case when motions and proposals are withdrawn by submitters during Agora without discussing them further, for example because they don’t believe in the proposal anymore or there were some amendments that changed the original proposal/motion, regardless of the possible interest in the topic by other delegates. According to the proposers, once the items on the agenda are ratified, those become Agora properties, therefore in order to withdraw a proposal/motion, original proposers must do so with the approval of the Agora which has adopted an agenda indicating that the motion will be debated. Although this proposal aims to regulate how proposals are withdrawn, the changes involves the general approval of the possibility of the Agenda modification. Now, in order to modify the order of the topics listed in the agenda a simple majority is required. If this proposal would pass, a qualified majority is required to remove topics and and votings from the proposed agenda.

Proposal to introduce a maximum fee for statutory events

Also submitted by Eveline Joore, Evelien Kroon and Wietske Jousma on behalf of AEGEE-Enschede, this proposal describes the aim to have a maximum fee for our statutory events. Currently the participation of the Agora should be free for all members (of the Agora), but, in the same article of the Working Format of the Agora, it is specified that local organisers can charge participants for some additional services and the exception must be approved by the Financial Director. The average cost of Agora participation fee in the recent years is 50 euros. The proposers argue that a maximum fee for the statutory was never agreed on and they therefore propose to set a maximum fee of 14 euros per night in order to keep the Agora affordable for every AEGEE Members. Therefore the Autumn Agora, which normally lasts from the Wednesday to the Sunday (four nights), would have a maximum fee of  56 euros. The Spring Agora, having usually one day more opening on Tuesday and having people leaving on Sunday (five nights), would have a maximum fee of 70 euros. Also, the maximum fee can be increased by a maximum percentage based on the Eurostat Euro Area annual inflation statistics of the calendar year.

Simplify the CIA: Case Study Trips

Svenja van Der Tol and Aleksandra Kluczka on behalf of the Comité Directeur and Claudio Gennaro on behalf of Juridical Commission are proposing to simplify the articles concerning the Case Study Trips. A case study trip has been used a lot in the past, for instance when AEGEE was expanding to the East. The changes now specify that the Case Study Trip has the purpose of researching in the interest of AEGEE and the complementary aim is its promotion. Participants can be from a local or from a body, replacing the old Working Group or a Supporting Committee on the European level, and they will be selected by the organising team based on their motivation. Moreover, two third of the total participants must be an AEGEE member. In case the proposal will be adopted, it is added also that after the approval of the Comité Directeur, the organising team would decide on the topic, the time schedule and the locations covered and a report with results and a financial overview should be presented within one month after the trip took place.

Allowing Case Shadowers for the Mediation Commission

This proposal is presented by Damien Latacz on behalf of the Mediation Commission (MedCom). If approved, it would change the working format of the Mediation Commission by adding a new figure to the MedCom: the case shadower. Damien Latacz argues that cases that the MedCom are handling might proceed also after a term is finished, thus forbidding the previous team to advise the new one, except from the Knowledge Transfer period. With this proposal, the MedCom would have the possibility to have case shadowers on certain cases. The shadowers can only be previous members of the MedCom and they are assigned only on a specific case, not having access to any data but only to the ones of the case they are involved with. S/he wouldn’t have voting rights and s/he would be removed from his/her position once the case would be closed (no longer than two weeks after the closing). His/her role would be merely advisory.

Written by Erika Bettin, AEGEE-Verona

Last but not least, we introduce the proposal Reforming Working Groups, Policy Work and Action Agenda execution, proposed by Mayri Tiido, Ivan Bielik and Paul Smits from the Comité Directeur. If accepted, this proposal will radically change Working Groups as we know them.

When, during Autumn Agora Cagliari, the Visa Freedom Working Group, was deleted, it was clear that Working Groups are not working anymore. The problem was highlighted already during a survey launched before the Agora where all (former) members of Working Groups could give input. A Progress Meeting was organised by Mayri Tiido and Ivan Bielik from the Comité Directeur, which was useful to investigate the problem, but no conclusion was reached. This is one of the reasons that pushed Mayri Tiido, Ivan Bielik and Paul Smits (respectively Projects and Communications Director, Human Resources Director and President of AEGEE-Europe) to write a proposal to make some (huge) changes.

The proposal Reforming Working Groups, Policy Work and Action Agenda execution aims to change the current Working Groups (namely Culture WG, Human Rights WG, Sport WG, International Politics WG, Education WG, Enviromental WG, Language WG) from struggling bodies to bodies who will work. The idea is to merge the work of Policy Officers and Working Groups on the Strategic Plan fields. Basically, for every Focus Area of the Strategic Plan there will be a Working Group that will start its term on the 1st of August, having all of its activities approved by the Comité Directeur. Internally, it will create activities related to the Strategic Plan and externally it will represent the position of AEGEE-Europe in its field.

Each group will be lead by an appointed memeber, the Coordinator, who will choose the Policy Officer; along with six other AEGEE members (at least 4 locals shall be represented). The group will present an Activity Plan during the Autumn Agora, an Interim Activity Report during the Spring Agora and an Activity report during the following Autumn Agora.

This proposal aims to solve two problems in our Association: the functioning of the Working Groups and the fullfilment of the Strategic Plan. During the last Autumn Agora, only 30% of the Strategic Plan was fulfilled, which is a worrying sign of the lack of  committment of members and locals towards the thematic part of our association. At the same time Policy Officers cannot be in charge of a specific field by themselves. With the new Working Group, the proposers hope to increase the participation in the Strategic Plan and its fields with a new functioning organ which can support locals, create activities and be an expert in the respective field of action.

All the existing Working Groups won’t disappear for good, but they will be transformed into Interest Groups. They can be created upon request from an interested AEGEE Member and they will be open to anyone. Each Interest Group will have two moderators who will send a report to the CD every two months and an overview to every ordinary Agora. In case of a lack of moderators, CD has the power to dissolve the Group.

You can read the proposal here and follow the discussion about it in the forum here.

Written by Erika Bettin, AEGEE-Venezia

A few days ago, the Council of the European Union published its proposal for “a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, pupil exchange, remunerated and unremunerated training, voluntary service and au pairing”, resulting from the meeting in Brussels on the last 9th of December.

The Council of the European Union, who was under the Italian Presidency back in December, made a further step in the legislative process which will lead to an update Directive on visa issues. In fact, back in March 2013, the European Commission (EC) published a Proposal for revising the existing Directive 2014/114/EC (dated December 2004) on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service, and Directive 2005/71/EC (Dating October 2005) on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of scientific research. The aim was to improve the legal framework applicable to third-country nationals, including also the remunerated trainees and au pair.

In February 2014, the European Parliament (EP) voted its first reading, serving as a mandate for the negotiations with the Council.

Despite its title, and the premises in the same text (point (2) of the Proposal: “[The Directive] should therefore simplify and streamline the existing provisions for the different groups”), this proposal was embarrassingly inadequate compared to the EC and the EP proposals.

In fact, already in the Article 1 (a) and in the Article 2 (1), the Directive makes a clear distinction between third-country nationals who apply to be admitted on the territory of a Member State for the purpose of research and study – for which the Directive shall compulsory apply –  and the ones applying in the frame of “pupil exchange scheme or educational project, unremunerated training or voluntary service”, for which “Member States may also decide to apply” (the Directive, ndr).

This reduction of the scope of the Directive, compared to the one proposed by the EC, is of huge concern. In fact, if we bring it to our association, it may mean that non-EU members may have burdens in participating in events taking place in all those countries who won’t extend the scope of the Directive to others than students.

The second biggest concern regards the fee for applying for a visa: not only is a fee foreseen, but, in its document,the Council does not foresee any limitation, but rather gives a suggestion for it not to be “disproportionate or excessive”. Again, the limit of the Council is clear: we all know how difficult, demanding and expensive it is to apply for a visa (if we didn’t apply directly, we for sure know stories from our friends in the Network), and this document proceeds in the exact opposite way than the Erasmus+ legal framework, where the learning mobility of individuals is one of the main actions to pursue the Programe objectives.

The list doesn’t stop unfortunately. Reading further in the document is clearly stated that “The competent authorities of the Member State concerned shall adopt a decision […] as soon as possible but no later than 90 days of the complete application being lodged”. Can you imagine applying for an Agora three months in advance to make sure to get the visa on time? Moreover, this provision extends considerably the “60 days” EC proposal, and even more the “30 days” framework suggested by the European Parliament.

The last remarkable point comes regarding the visa holders for studying and research considering to spend a period of time (up to 6 months) in another EU Country: despite the already long procedure spent to apply for a visa, the third-countries nationals may incur in a renew procedure for the second Member State, who is allowed to start further verification on documentation and purpose of stay.

Luckily, this is not the final version of the Directive. According to the Lisbon Treaty, this document has to go through the Parliament, who has the right not to validate it as such, but to propose modifications that will need to be then approved by the Council.

Of course, this doesn’t mean at all that there is an easy path ahead. Unfortunately, this document shares the fear to further concede facilitation for mobility in Europe. Let’s not forget that the Schengen agreement has been quoted and pointed out as one of the main factors allowing free movement to terrorists, and the happenings in Ukraine, Turkey, France, Libya (and the list may unfortunately go on) are misused and misreported to create a growing terror mood in Europe which is disruptive and mining the concept of United Europe.

That’s why AEGEE, together with the European Youth Forum and in all the possible platforms, is and has to continue campaigning for Youth Rights in Europe. An official statement has been presented, and a Policy Paper on Youth Mobility will be presented at the next Agora Asturias to be ratified.

Youth rights are at a stake, and we, European citizens, need to do as much as we can (and a bit more) to make sure we build up the Europe we want to live in.

You can read AEGEE-Europe Reaction to the Council Proposal for the Revision of the Visa Directive here.

Written by Alfredo Sellitti, AEGEE-Salerno, Policy Officer on Youth Mobility

What about the proposals’ process? Do you know the final result, but not what happened in between? Is what was obtained exactly what the proposers wanted to? If you wondered about at least one of these things, then keep reading the interview.

1. Change of the Visitors’ selection procedure

What actually changes with your proposal in the visitors’ selection process? How will this  influence next Agora selection?

Mattia Abis: The original proposal was a drastic change for the visitors’ selection procedure: we were trying to use the same procedure that locals are using for delegates’ selection. It means a voting at local Agora to create a ranking list of them which the Chair Team could use after. As everybody can imagine, this proposal created a huge debate and it has been modified.

What were the amendments? And are you satisfied with the result?

Mattia: Three amendments were presented: one by Mathijs Waegemakers (AEGEE-Enschede), which we rejected, a second one was made by Maurits Mink (AEGEE-Maastricht) which we accepted.  The third one, presented by Mário Branco (AEGEE-Paris), we rejected as well, but after a voting on the amendment the Prytanium wanted to keep it, however as we did not agree with the amendment we rejected it for a second time. The amendment was put to a vote in the plenary which approved it. So the final proposal was as follows: the selection is made by the Comité Directeur (CD) and Chair Team, while taking into account the ranking made by the local board.

The Proposal has been approved with 81% of votes in favour. Beyond what happend to our original proposal, I can say that we are satisfied: it was the first time we were presenting a proposal during a Prytania and it was wonderful to see how many people were involved in the discussion and that we contributed to improve our Association.

2. Nationality Quota for the Mediation Commission

When did you reach the decision of making this proposal and why?

Fabian Brüggemann: The decision to hand in the proposal concerning the nationality quota for the Mediation Commission was reached after the candidature presentations, realizing that we have 3 people sharing the same (Dutch) nationality. Talking to the representative of the Juridical Commission (JC) being present at the Agora we were told that they would probably be strict with interpreting the CIA. This would have meant that only two out of the three Dutch candidates – the ones with the most votes – would become members of the Mediation Commission. Having been president of the Mediation Commission for one year and a half, I know quite well that it is important to have different opinions and point of views in the Mediation Commission. So it is better to have 4 members (plus the JC President) than only three – which would have been the case if the CIA would have been applied strictly.

On the other hand, even if the JC would have said that one of the members was allowed to use his second (German) nationality, there could have been a case where – theoretically – the Mediation Commission takes a decision, after which an antenna suffering from that decision might say “but the way the Mediation Commission is composed is not according to the CIA! So your decision is not valid.” We wrote the proposal in order to prevent both of these possible problems.

You might say this is a lot “what if” and all this is very theoretical – and I do agree with that, but since we had the chance to avoid the above mentioned situations, we decided to go for it. So concretely the Network achieved more clarity and less uncertainty. Again, this is all very theoretical, but we decided to stick to our own rules and not just say “uh, we just do it the easy way”.

3. Decreasing the number of financial presentations & Change of the term of the internal financial year

What is the aim of the first proposal?

Anna Gots: The aim of the proposal was basically to ease both the life of Financial Director of AEGEE-Europe and of Agora members by lessening the amount of financial presentations at the Agora to the amount absolutely necessary to give a full overview of the finances of AEGEE-Europe.

And are you satisfied with the result? Were there any amendments?

Anna: There were no ammendments to the proposal suggested. I assume that’s because the proposal was developed much in advance and in cooperation with another experienced member: Tom Simons (AEGEE-Enschede). In fact, initially it was his idea that was successfully realised by this proposal.

Before your second proposal the internal financial year ended the 31st of July like your CD term. How  will things change after this proposal?

Anna: To be precise, last year the CD term officially ended on 31st of August, providing a shift of one month between the end of the internal financial year and the CD year. Since in Agora Budapest the term of CD was changed in a way that it should end on 31st of July, the aforementioned shift was lost, leaving the Financial Director not many chances to close internal financial year while still being in the office. So this proposal just fixed this discrepancy, returning things to normal.

Is it the result  you expected? Were there any amendments?

Anna: Indeed, it’s the result I’ve been aiming at. There was only one amendment suggested by the former Secretary General – Alma Mozgovaja – still during the process of online consultation, which I incorporated in the final version of the proposal. The amendment concerned the amount of days Financial Director can stay in the office after the end of his/her term. Namely the fact that it shouldn’t be more than seven days.

4. Removing the Main Fields of Action

Why did you decide to present this proposal? How did you come up with it?

Ana Potocnik: During the Identity meeting, where we were drafting the new Identity document with the Identity team and CD, we realized, that the Main Fields of Action do not reflect the reality of our organisation. They are not concrete and they do not describe what we do in AEGEE, some aspects of our work (especially that of the EnWG, HRWG, Health for Youth, and Youth UnEmployment) were not covered. Moreover in the survey we launched before Agora Budapest, more than 70% of our members stated that they believe AEGEE does not contribute to two of the Main Fields of Action (Higher Education and Peace and Stability). We (the Identity team) believed that the structure of the new Identity document -which was ratified by Agora Zaragoza, presents all aspects of AEGEE. This makes the Main Fields of Action an unnecessary element of the Identity. The Identity document that we have now consist of: VISION – what AEGEE dreams about, what do we want our future to look like, MISSION – how does AEGEE contribute to this future, MEANS – what exactly do we do and what are the tools to achieve the Mission, STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES – which values do we stand for.

Were there any amendments? And are you satisfied with the result?

Ana: Yes, we and the CD are satisfied. There was only one amendment, suggested by JC. Our team missed the fact that the Main Fields of Action are also mentioned in another part of the CIA. They suggested to avoid confusion and nonsense in the Statutes by changing this part as well. Besides that there was nothing, about which I was quite surprised. The proposal was accepted easier than I expected.

5. An updated AEGEE identity

How will members and Antennae benefit from this ?

Maria Arends: With this updated Identity, it is much clearer what AEGEE is actually about. That makes it easier to explain it to members and future members, as well as externals. Even though it might not be phrases you know by heart, from this you can remember and, more importantly, understand the scope of the association, which makes it much easier to share.

Are you satisfied with the result?

Maria: Personally yes, I am very happy with it. The reason why I wanted to join the Identity Meeting and later the team, is that I felt AEGEE’s structure was chaotic and hard to explain -even if you are an active member. That’s why I think it is much better now: now I know what to tell people!

For further information: https://www.zeus.aegee.org/statutoryvote/jc/view_public.php?proposal_id=54

Written by Cosmina Bisboaca , AEGEE-Torino

As many board members already know, each local has to submit an annual report about the events that they organised, as required in the antenna criteria. But what about the plans for the future? The General Subvention from the European Commission represents around 40% of AEGEE-Europe’s annual budget, and the application for this grant has to include the activity plans of locals as well. This was the issue raised by Pavel Zborník, European Institutions and Communications Director of AEGEE-Europe, who proposed (on behalf of the Comité Directeur) to include the submission of a yearly Activity Plan in the antenna criteria.

The AEGEEan: Could you, please, sum up the main points of the proposal?

Pavel: I think the point of the proposal is quite clear: I would like to make sure that my successor – meaning not just the successor dealing with the operational grant – will have enough information about what members of our Network plan to do during the following year. Such information is also very interesting for the Network Commission, at least from what I’ve seen during my experience in the NetCom.
This proposal has two aims: the first one is to get information from locals about their planned activities, and the second is more or less the introduction of a planning system in AEGEE. Obviously, if you want to achieve something, it is very important to know how, this is why we need plans. I believe that our locals are able to achieve very good results, and this rule would help them in this by incenting them to set a concrete plan for their activities. I’m sure that for most locals, this is already a common practise and it will not create any problems for them. As for the rest, together with the NetCom we will help to start this process by providing all the necessary information and knowledge about the planning process.

Why did you see the need for the proposed changes?

Right now, submitting a report of activities from the previous period is included  in the antenna criteria, but we don’t require locals to also submit a plan for the future, and this is a bit strange for me. As the person responsible for submitting the application for the General Subvention, I can only kindly ask locals for such kind of information – the information that I need to write this application, and therefore secure necessary funding for AEGEE-Europe.

So how will AEGEE and AEGEE members benefit from it?

You might know that the operational grant from the Youth in Action is 50 000 €, which in my eyes is a quite visible result. As I mentioned earlier, by introducing  requirement for planning, locals will have more precise ideas about what they will organise during the upcoming year. And this would also help us in order to manage our big Network.

Writte by Zsófia Komáromi, AEGEE-Budapest

In Agora Enschede many proposals were made on enhancing the Summer University Project. It is no different for this Agora, and yet somehow it is. Because this time, on behalf of the Comité Directeur (CD) Pavel Zbornik proposes to remove the Summer University (SU) booklet from the CIA and to open up SUs for non-AEGEE members. The latter proposal especially has caused much discussion around the Network, so The AEGEEan took the opportunity to interview Pavel and to hear about the idea behind the proposal.

The AEGEEan: How did you come up with this proposal?

Pavel: I think I got this idea in the summer, when I was thinking what I wanted to achieve in my CD term and I realized that with our SU Project we can achieve much more. SU has been our most successful project over the years, however we can see that there are still quite a lot of possibilities of expanding its success. Another important factor was that we as AEGEE should be more open. In the CIA it is written that most of our events can be attended by non-AEGEE participants (even if we seldom do it); so if we can agree that all our events can be accessible by externals (except our General Assembly), why not apply the same measures to our SU? I am personally against any elitist or close-minded attitude, and opportunities should be offered to everyone. Why should only a few AEGEE members instead of the entire European students community enjoy this opportunity? Why the other students who do not have an AEGEE local in their university city could not?

Why do you believe that, if approved, it would be good to open up the SUs for non-AEGEE members?

I will answer you differently; can you imagine if Erasmus program was open only to members of ESN? The point is to transfer SU into a mobility program, so that the benefits for non-AEGEE members will be same as for AEGEE members. We can see that in a lot of cases SU was the breaking point in many people’s lives. I can be the example; I would not be answering these questions today if I did not go to an SU in 2009, and I am sure that many people have a similar story. AEGEE enriches people, gives them new experiences and new knowledge, makes them feel more European and creates active citizens of future. Speaking for myself, I can say it was a great experience which made me who I am now.

Some locals mainly get their members because people want to apply for a Summer University and they could be concerned that getting new members will be even more difficult. What is your response to this? Do you agree that it will make this process more difficult? 

In AEGEE we always complain that our members are not active, and that they are in AEGEE just to travel and have fun. If you look upon how we promote AEGEE nowadays, and given the fact that we get most of our new members through the SU campaign, then you cannot blame them for just wanting to travel. They joined AEGEE for this reason.
Right now the proposal is to open it only to young people who do not have AEGEE locals in their university cities. Therefore locals will not be endangered. We should ask ourselves: are we ready to change our strategy in getting new members from the ones interested just in traveling to the ones interested in AEGEE and its principles? This should be the effect of this proposal in the long run. AEGEE will become again a network of young people who are interested in Europe and who want to work to make it a better place.

You say that opening up the programme will increase the interest in AEGEE in countries with low AEGEE activity, but if people do not have to be members of AEGEE in order to apply for the SUs, why would the interest then increase?

How are we founding new locals these days? In most cases, when somebody gets involved in AEGEE activities (through another AEGEE local, through their friends, or when they go for Erasmus in a city where AEGEE has a local). These people, when they go back to their hometown are interested in continuing this experience, and they also want give the opportunity of experiencing AEGEE spirit to other students in their city.

If we open up the SU project and give this opportunity to somebody from (for instance) Norway, Iceland or Ireland, it is likely that new contacts will be created in those areas. It is for sure much more effective than somebody getting inspired by AEGEE just by reading information on our website.

Others argue that opening up the SUs will emphasize the “travel agency” label that AEGEE has carried during the last couple of years. Do you agree? And do you believe that this will affect AEGEE in a positive or negative way?

In previous years SUCT was doing a very good job in pushing locals to have real content in SU, and even if there might have been some resistance at the beginning, we can see that it works quite well nowadays. SU is not only about traveling and having fun, but also about learning about new cultures and new topics brought by this thematic frame. If we continue to push in this direction, and if we present the SU project this way, I do not see a negative outcome. As the promotion in the cities where there is no AEGEE will be done from the European level, we can be sure that the it will emphasize the content and the cultural aspects.

And about the brand of travel agency, you can also say that Youth in Action Programme by European Commission is a travel agency. Youth exchanges in action 1.1 or 3.1 are quite similar to our SUs. But nobody considers this YiA program a travel agency. In the end, it mostly depends on how we present AEGEE and the SU project itself. Then we will recruit a different kind of people and the image will eventually change.

AEGEE members in countries with a high application rate for the SUs like e.g. Spain are concerned about opening up the programme because there is already a high rejection rate, and this might increase if the programme is opened. Do you understand their concern, and do you agree?

I do understand their concerns, but selection of participants is done by organizers and it is their free will what they do with applications. In case the opening of the SU is connected with a big increase of SU applications, it will be from places where AEGEE is not present now and probably countries where not so many applications are coming from. The general practice is to have a balanced group of participants by nationalities, at least what I can say as an organiser of two SUs. If we take Spanish applicants as an example, for SUs with 25 places, and 40 applications, let’s say 14 of them are from Spain. No more that 4-6 participants from Spain generally will be accepted, so an increase of the total amount of applications will not have a strong influence on the acceptance rate.

I know that the situation with Spanish and Italian applications can be quite demotivating for the rejected people and their locals, but right now I do not see any other solution that can motivate the locals to organize more SUs, and instead of organising TSUs to take the challenge of organising one by themselves.

You mentioned that non-AEGEE members must pay a 40 EUR fee to AEGEE-Europe when applying for a Summer University: How did you come up with this fee? What will this money be used for?

For every SU application there is an application fee 2.5 EUR that is shared: 70% goes to SUCT and 30% to AEGEE-Europe. If we open the SU project to non-AEGEE applications, AEGEE members would be disadvantaged as they, apart from the SU application fee, have to pay the membership fee of their local and this would in turn disadvantage the locals, as some people would apply as non-AEGEE members instead of joining a local. That is why a higher fee for externals has been introduced. The amount of 40 EUR is connected with what is in general a regular AEGEE membership fee; in the majority of locals it is lower than 40 EUR, so AEGEE members will not be tempted to leave the antenna and go to an SU as external (not to mention that with your membership fee you also get the possibility to participate in a big amount of local activities).

According to CIA, 70% of the SU application fee goes to SUCT and it is SUCT’s responsibility to deal with it. In case SUCT has a bigger budget, this money can be invested back in the SU project, to make it even stronger. We want to have thematic SUs, so why not support them financially, with trainers’ reimbursement for instance? This can be one of the ideas; another can be to invest money in a big promotional campaign which will bring more attention to SUs and to AEGEE in general.

Why is it important to remove the SU booklet from the CIA?

I will start with a question: why is important to have such a description in CIA? Does everything have to be written in CIA? My opinion is that not everything does necessarily. If this proposal is accepted, it is up to SUCT to decide if they want to have a booklet or not.

As I am presenting this proposal I am asking if such an investment of 2800 EUR a year is a good investment? I am afraid it is not. I saw many times, when people were leaving EBM, due to having just carry on luggage, they had to throw booklets away. We are talking here about quite a big booklet that can be used only for a short period of time and its preparation and dissemination affects SU planning cycles which need to have a deadline right after New Year.

The AEGEEan hopes that some of your questions have been answered here, remember to check the other interviews with candidates and the other proposals in order to prepare for Agora Budapest in the best possible way! 

Written by Patricia Anthony, AEGEE-København

It has been less than two months since Guillermo Garcia Tabarés moved out of the Comité Directeur (CD) house but that has not stopped him from being proactive in AEGEE. He has come up with not one, not two, not three, but four different proposals on how AEGEE could be improved in relation to Comité Directeur and the Working Groups (WGs). He believes that the Knowledge Transfer (KT) period should be shortened and the term of the CD should be from August to August. Moreover, his experience with the Working Groups has taught him that AEGEE-Academy stands out from the rest of the Working Groups and that if the different WGs had less board members, the activity would increase.

The AEGEEan had a talk with him to find out how he managed to make four proposals and why he believes they all are important.

The AEGEEan: You have four proposals for Agora Budapest. How did you find the time to work on each?

Guillermo: While I was in the Comité Directeur I had a little notebook where I would write down all the issues I would like to change. When it was time to make proposals, I reconsidered the ones that had a very good reasoning behind them. Coming back to the question, August was quite a relaxing month regarding mails and the fact that the Knowledge Transfer period was not a full month task, so I had enough time to “undust” my notebook and start working on them. Moreover, two of them are not purely mine, but shared with my other two mates. It is true that if you read the announcement of the Juridical Commission it looks like that. Still, if you open them you can check the whole list of proposers.

What are the ideas behind the different proposals?

The proposal about reducing the number of board members of the Working Groups strictly to four fixed positions is based both on integration of all the members of WGs into everyday tasks and on a more efficient work within the board.

The one about the Academy aims mainly at placing it out of the Working Groups, due to the fact that it is not a thematic body, and this causes problems every time the Working Group criteria needs to be implemented. In my opinion it is useless to have a list of musts, if then they cannot be applicable, but still some others should.

The last two proposals are related to the work of the Comité Directeur. Making the CD term last from August to August, and not from September to September would result in a better integration of the new team. Since in August both internal AEGEE work and external institutions-related work is very much nonexistent, it would allow the new team to have all their meetings and first tasks in a more relaxed environment. It would also help the outgoing board to have a month of re-introduction to life.

Finally we would like to shorten the KT period. One month is too much, and there are a lot of moments when time is consumed by unnecessary things (elected CD members waiting for tasks, less pressure, feeling lost…). We have to take into account that during this month the house is also consuming a double amount of energy, and so is our budget, not just for house costs but for subsistence costs. In addition, this year it was proven that two weeks is enough for a programme that would include both personal sessions and common ones (keep into account that as the KT would be shorter the CD members would have more time during that month to finish their work, and that if the previous proposal gets accepted the new team can have the following weeks for their internal job).

So that answers a lot of questions about the CD proposals – let us move on to the Academy. You suggest to place AEGEE-Academy outside of the Working Groups. But where should AEGEE-Academy then be placed?

(AEGEE-)Academy would become a new body of AEGEE-Europe with its own part in the CIA. If one checks the CIA now, the Academy simply does not exist apart from collaboration mentions done by other bodies.

And what would that change?

First of all, the Academy will not need to accomplish criteria that were not created for its purpose. Moreover, as it happens with Working Groups, the Academy would still be able to “upgrade” to AEGEE-Academy, becoming an independent association that needs to sign a contract linking its work to AEGEE-Europe (see Convention d’Adhésion). Right now as the Academy is in that “upgraded” state, it will have to sign a new CdA following the new rules.

It seems it is a minor change, but still quite meaningful to ease the work and changes of the Working Groups.

And then we have the Working Groups, the area that Guillermo is most passionate about. Don’t believe us? Rumor has it that Guillermo is running for speaker of the Culture Working Group (CWG) and that he is helping with the creation of a new one; but let us have a look at the proposal that could change the current situation.

You have been working with WGs for a whole year, what was your experience? What was good and what has room for improvement?

Working Groups were my little children and also the ones to have a full inbox nonstop! Jokes aside, I was really happy to work with them, having the responsibility to implement during the entire year a whole process of restructuring that resulted in a complete manual. I also had the chance to have several chats with most of the board members, in order to follow all the changes, this chance to talk to the members one-to-one is something I also like. I was able to feel the people behind the mails. I am also satisfied by the fact that now all Working Groups have the chance to work under the same structure and that this will not take more time at least in the next years, leaving more place for real action.

When it comes to improvements, I would say that the way some people see the whole picture should change. They should try to look more positively about common issues, to give suggestions and then to take the responsibility to implement them instead of just complaining. I think speakers meetings for common problems would help a lot!

All the Working Group boards are in the middle of elections, what will happen with the WGs who have elected more than four board members?

Nothing at all! If this proposal gets accepted it will only be applicable after Agora Budapest, when the elections of the Working Groups are finished, or ongoing from a process that was legally started in the previous way. On the other hand, the next board elections in 2013 would have to follow this new system.

Okay then, but another thing we are curious about is this: The WGs are currently having elections and some find it difficult to find candidates, why do you think that is the case?

This is because of the lack of active members, which is due to lack of promotion and activities.

Firstly, by promotion I do not mean sending the open call to Announce-L, but promotion of their activities and results in an attractive way, otherwise why would an AEGEE member get interested by an open call for a board without knowing even the Working Group itself? A clear example is the number of articles published in the AEGEEan. There are eight Working Groups and around two or three posts per month in total… Something is wrong there. External promotion is also needed, but once more, this has to be linked to an offer, otherwise few enthusiastic people will come on their own.

I think Working Groups need to have more activities, and share them among their members, and make sure once and again that this is happening in this way, contacting them directly, etc. All members need to be included in all the actions and to be given the possibility to be responsible for some parts of them. Only this will make them feel like a part of the Working Group willing to keep active.

In other words: the Speaker needs to guide and coordinate the Working Group to make things happen but for this we need very strong HR and PR strategies, with people that take these responsibilities as an important issue that demands their time.

Yes, time seems to be the issue and under the current structure a person cannot be speaker of more than one WG, but do you believe that a person can be a board member of two different WGs efficiently? Should this be changed as well?

Uhmm… good question! I remember that in Agora Skopje, when the Working Group reform was discussed, it was even proposed that the speaker of a WG could not be speaker anywhere else, but nobody thought about other positions… I see it, in any case, a bit different: a speaker should concentrate just on a Working Group, as he/she has to coordinate everything that happens in it, becoming more and more professional about the topics that are ongoing, or spending his/her time on it trying to look for other information and possible actions. About the other positions, they are more task-related, and while not very likely, I could see a person administering two databases, publications, etc.

In any case a person can be a member of as many WGs and develop as many actions as wanted, so my preference is to let the experience of being in the board to as many people as possible, to have a more active Network rather than a monopoly.

That definitely leaves food for thought. In any case, we hope that the four different proposals are more clear to you now than they were before and that it will help you in the fruitful discussion(s) that may happen at the Agora.

Written by Patricia Anthony, AEGEE-København