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