Informal Members' Council
Present:
ïÂ- Robert Berg
ïÂ- Gijs Breedveld
ïÂ- William Buil
ïÂ- Bram Dees
ïÂ- Pieter Dijkshoorn
ïÂ- Ronald Duijvenvoorde
ïÂ- Machiel van Es,
ïÂ- Peter Florijn
ïÂ- Raymond Godderij
ïÂ- Rietta Julemont-Gerssen
ïÂ- Arjan van Krimpen
ïÂ- Job Kruyswijk
ïÂ- Marc Lambriks
ïÂ- Ernst Mak
ïÂ- Edwin Miltenburg
ïÂ- Koos Mulder
ïÂ- Veronica van Nederveen
ïÂ- Johan Riezebos
ïÂ- Rob Schouten
ïÂ- Agnes van Uitert
ïÂ- Bart Velde
ïÂ- Henk Uijttenhout
ïÂ- Agnes van Uitert
ïÂ- Bart Velde
ïÂ- Jan Wind,
Cancellations:
ïÂ- Jasper Flapper
ïÂ- Coen Groen
ïÂ- Jaqueline de Putter
ïÂ- Ronald Smith
ïÂ- Wim de Boom
Summary of what was discussed, by topic, according to the agenda:
Royal Institute of Engineers
1. Renewal of boards
Introduction: The KIVI 3.0 programme brings renewal within KIVI, this could/should also be extended to the boards. This will be discussed on the basis of the propositions received by the members' council committee following the mailing of 10 August.
Board terms
Proposition: Departments should explain to HB or LR any overruns of statutory terms of office and the background to this. With insufficient reasons or 'succession activities', HB or LR could remove board members from office.
Reactions:
Should this be enforced via statutes or in an alternative way?
Above all, there is a shortage in recruitment of 'youth' and this affects board members of departments above all.
Should there start to be a requirement for at least of 15% under 3 terms?
Should this be monitored; is this a role for the HB?
Find positive counter-examples; the cause must be removed (best practices, etc.). These comments are met with approval.
Action(i): Member council members think it is important to start in time with keeping departmental boards up to standard. The other directors can and want to help with that. Then, however, insight
is needed into which departments could use new board members and who can be contacted. As starting information, the document - Agenda Item 3e 'Overview of departmental board terms' of the May 2015 Members' Council - can be used. This can be checked and updated 2x a year by the ureau and provided to ward boards. Request the HB to set this up.
Action(ii): Departments should justify to the HB why a board member stays on longer than the statutory terms. On the recommendation of the HB, the membership council may remove a board member from office in the event of insufficient justification. Request the HB to set this up.
Governance style
Thesis: Departments and main board now meet in private; minutes and agendas are not distributed to members. With a view to greater openness, would it not be better to publish and distribute these documents as standard (via website)?
Comments:
Content and purpose of the statement are fine, but wording too negative. Alternative: 'in the context of greater openness it is better...'
The importance of a more open governance style is shared, but the constituency must be consulted first.
Is this an obligation? Thesis needs more positive wording, no coercion, a
"YES, unless".
10% confidential information is not a valid reason for not wanting to share 90% non-confidential information. Then simply create a 'confidential page' that can be saved separately.
Action: Request HB to discuss the pros and cons of a more open governance style with divisional boards, e.g. at the board day.
Members' Council
Thesis: The president is also president of the LR, this is submitted by statute. The question is to what extent this is wen-sible (The mining department has indicated in an email here that it does not think this is correct). An alternative would be an independent chairman (hired or otherwise).
Comments:
Does this require an amendment to the articles of association? Response: Yes.
Distinction current situation vs structure; isn't this a problem due to the current 'puppets'? To what extent is independence an issue?
Thesis sounds like vote of no confidence?
Argument against thesis: If there is other chairman, then president (and other HB members) can stay away or not really attend
Argument for: Independent president is normal construction (see 2nd chamber, other clubs)
Can the HB also be off stage during a members' council? This promotes an open dialogue.
The members were of the opinion that currently felt problems should not be leading for the future. There is no need to change the structure laid down in the statutes.
Action: No action
Commissions
Thesis: Various commissions exist in the statutes and by-laws: It is unclear whether these committees still exist and who their members are. Can their members be made known on the website?
Action: Call on HB to publish the existing committees, their task, members and appointment procedure on the website.
Openness of governance
Stelling: During the introduction it appears that this statement 'doubles up' with the one on 'style of governance'
Reactions:
Stelling should be rephrased to 'should consider' (less coercion)
But communication preferably via the website (fewer e-mails)
Actions: Merge thesis with 'style of governance', formulate more positively and without coercion and submit at LR.
Dialogue HB with departmental boards
Thesis: Questions from the HB and Bureau to departments often remain unanswered. How can we improve this?
Responses:
The call should be phrased both ways; questions to HB or Bureau are not always answered either.
Small anthology of examples of unfortunate communication and lack of responses from Bureau, HB or otherwise.
It is argued that a major cause is the communication style, pieces could be formatted and worded more contemporary: Start with what you want, instead of current format where requests come at the bottom of piece of text). On the other hand, departments and their boards should be more alert to these kinds of requests.
Actions: Call to improve communication: HB should ask more specific questions, formulate them better and place them in message and not ask multiple questions in one message/mail. On the other hand, the moral obligation of departments to respond and respond from the LR is pointed out.
Use members' expertise
Statement: The HB should make a visible appeal to KIVI members when developing policy.
Comments:
This could be done instead of hiring external experts. It is objected that
outsourcing offers contractual (result) guarantees (if done correctly). However, members could be brought in for things like assessing assignments; this could strengthen the agency. There is an abundance of knowledge in the field of ICT, building management, communication and many other subjects; it is rarely used. A positive example where this did happen is in the development of the Kivi 3.0 programme.
But: leave implementation to the (contracted) implementers! Contribution by members right on policy, but limit it to consultation! A bonus for member contributions is that member involvement in the association is strengthened. Members could help and strengthen HB and bureau in sounding board groups. When the databa-se/website are ready, it will be easy to search for the right expertise.
Action: This proposition should be introduced in the LR
Dormant departments
Proposition: There are departments within the association that do not organise or carry out activities. Should a check on this be introduced?
Comments: Mandatory dissolution or inject new board? What are the minimum kpi's for a department? Departments do vary a lot (how to assess different things). Still need a set of kpi's. Departments should report (annually) to the HB or LR using these kpi's. It is stated that the Buro carries out this check from time to time; is this a task for the Buro?
Action: In the end, it is decided not to submit this proposition to LR or HB, but to propose it as a subject for the Management Day.
Submissions from the Commercial Engineering Department
CI 1: More coherence in structure/less departments
Proposition: The idea is to reorganise departments in such a way as to create a more coherent and clear structure.
Comments: Will that work, clashes with cultures! No consensus is found on an approach. However, there is agreement that the current structure has drawbacks. In the South Region, an 'umbrella structure' is used to coordinate between departments. Call to present this best practice in LR or at Steering Day
Action: Invitation to Region South to present best practice at LR or Steering Day.
CI 2: better cluster arrangement
Thesis: The clusters have been in use for a while now, but CI and other departments are not happy with the arrangement. Isn't it time for a reclassification/evaluation?
Comments: The clusters are a practical consultative structure for the HB. Departments and regions seem more often ne-gative than positive about the consultations.
CI 3: term of office (already dealt with)
CI 4: administrative renewal (already dealt with)
CI 5: bureau functioning (will be moved to agenda item 4)
CI 6: feedback on department board
Statement: Need for department board to know how well one is functioning.
Comments: Should there be a requirement for boards to report? CI board would like feedback, from LR, bureau or HB, all are welcome. Should there be reporting on kpi's and/or targets? (Repeating previous discussion)
2. Profile of the new president (19:30)
Introduction: the profile has since disappeared from the website. Are there any issues that we from the LR would like to communicate to the sollication committee?
Thesis:
Candidate(s) should provide the LR with a written vision of their ideas and plans with/for KIVI.
Comments: Such a 'motivation letter' is often used in similar situations/associations. The question is what is the value of such a letter; what are the chances of a candidate giving a dissenting opinion?
Is it possible to have a debate or interview with the candidate and (a delegation of) the LR? That way the personality also comes out, 'is this the man/woman who will represent our association?' Or could there even be several candidates, is preferable to current practice of one candidate. From the CA we can draw up criteria ('what do we expect of the president') and submit them.
Action (1): Proposal to HB for debate/interview of candidate with (delegation of) CA
Action(2): Members of the members' council are called upon to draw up 'what do we expect of the president' ie send it in.
Comments(ii): It is noted that it is strange and risky that the vice-president leaves at the same time. How has the induction/transfer been arranged? Wouldn't a younger chairman (60-65 yrs) have a better outward appearance? There was no clear consensus on this proposal.
3. Member council committee evaluation (20:00) Introduction: four propositions/points were put forward on the functioning of the LRC.
Cooperation with the Finance Committee (FiCo)
Introduction: Although the proposition is perhaps worded too strongly, cooperation between these two LR committees could be better.
Comments: It is responded from the FiCo that they are open to contact. A conversation between LRC and FiCo members will be organised. How can distance between the two committees be reduced? During the discussions it is concluded that there is no urgent need from the members' council for a change in the working method of both committees.
Action: A meeting between both committees will take place in the near future
LRC advice also sent to HB
Introduction: The LRC sends its advice to all LR members prior to LR meeting. The LRC experiences the lack of res-ponse to this as positive/ consenting. However, there was no effect in terms of LR discussion of proposals from the advice. Hence the question: What do LR members think of the LRC's advice?
Reactions:
The advice is judged useful; it provides a handle for obtaining a core/summary for the 'hundreds' of pa-ginas, minutes and other documents for the LR. However, the tone is sometimes experienced as too negative/hard/confrontational. The advice could also serve as input for 'preliminary discussion hour' prior to the LR. By ticking off propositions there or 'electronically polling' in advance, subjects could be ticked off. Also to make the agenda of the LR itself more efficient.
How could advice and decision-making have more impact?
- Timing of the documents, it would be nice if the agenda of the LR were (partly) known earlier
- Voting on advice in advance electronically retrieve
Action: The advice is insufficiently crystallised without polling the members of the member council in advance to send to HB. After an (electronic) poll, it can be done.
Strategy Members' Council
Introduction/reactions: Thesis explained in person. Feeling after 1 year of LR membership is 'disappointed'. The (distance) attitude LR/LRC and HB is hostile and negative, both ways.
In addition, there is a lax attitude in the LR with little commitment. "volunteering is not optional". There should be a 'complete reset' of feelings and sensitivities to arrive at a more constructive attitude.
Furthermore, there is no unambiguous strategy from the LR. 'Ad hoc' topics are brought in from subject groups without coherence. Would it be an idea for LR or subcommittees to present alternatives (instead of cues)?
Should there be an attendance requirement for LR members (or their substitutes)? It is decided to engage the bureau in encouraging LR members who never show up.
Action: Call to HB to ask bureau to encourage LR members to attend the LR.
It is noted that member council work is difficult, especially in the first years. Discussion flows seamlessly into next topic.)
More positive mutual communication
Introduction: How can communication and relationship between LR and HB be improved?
Comments: Would an input from new faces and/or student members help in this regard?
Bundle discussion on strategy in small groups and result of this to HB? Link this to HB portfolio distribution; help with topics from expertise. Also communicate directly and informally with HB members in addition to formal LR.
This seems to clash with LR's controlling task. But HB has indicated it also wants input in advance.
Comments: Formally this cannot be done under LR flag, but with different cap it can be done and also by other members. LR sees each other too little to establish common vision? Also by formulating reactions differently, positively and taking sensitivities into account, LR can give input on policy. Especially with early communication.
Action: LR members to seek informal contact with HB members
4. Miscellaneous topics (WVTTK) (21.00)
Use clubhouse
Introduction: Introduced by 'Engineers without Borders'; there is a new regulation limiting the opening hours of the KIVI building.
Reactions: More members have encountered this. Fortunately, other opening hours appear to be possible. On Sunday 4 Oct there will be all kinds of activities in the KIVI building during the day of science
Action: Request to HB for wider opening hours for the KIVI building.
Annual report
Introduction: The current annual report comprises one and a half pages for the whole of KIVI. There are departments with larger reports.
Comments: This is the secretarial report, financial report is in audit report. This accountant's report is also the reason for this brief report. Financial report gives no feedback on policy plan or other accountability other than finance.
Action: Request to HB to expand the annual report with an account of the policy pursued (Policy Impact Report in relation to the approved policy plan).
Chartered engineer project
Introduction:The status of this programme is unclear. Input has been provided from departmental boards; there has also been feedback, but not (yet) in all cases. Departments are the basis of our association, how is this programme linked to the departments?
Comments: The website is still quite unclear on who can participate. Pilots are now running through companies, programme is not (yet) available for individual. Bureau attitude is 'we'll take care of it'.
Action: Request to HB to share with the EAA the status of the programme and how it will be embedded in the KIVI association structure.
Motion to halve the contribution
Introduction: A motion was introduced calling on HB to draw up a budget based on halving the contribution.
Reactions: Explanation follows that it is not necessarily a halving but an indication that this is a radical action. This based on a survey of non-members by the mining department. Results of which were 'amount is too high' and 'a lot of money, not enough back'. The question is asked what happened to the plan for a cafeteria model dues (as was also included in KIVI NIRIA 3.0)? Recruitment at the bottom is hampered by high membership fees. In the previous LR, the proposal was submitted too late, but HB did agree to provide a response! The Mining Department says it will work out its own budget.
Action: Mining Department works out proposal including financial substantiation for 'reduced contribution'
The KIVI website
Introduction: The new KIVI website is (finally) live, but not yet at the desired level. On the other hand, it is still being worked on and there is daily improvement
Comments: A proposal is adopted to save comments and only respond after 15 October.
Action: Check with office where feedback on website can be submitted after 15 October.
WVTTK
Announcement from the Young Engineers: The number of young members has increased by 100!
Closing meeting (21:45)
Description
THURSDAY 24 September 2015
Meeting of member council members for consultation and position development.
Agenda see link below.
The meeting is open to members of the association only.
18:00 Hall open. Sandwiches in the coffee room.
18:30 Start of informal Members' Council
21:00 Drinks
22:00 End
Location
Organiser
Council of Members
Name and contact details for information
Member Council committee