Informal Council of Members
Report of informal Council of Members meeting
Summary and recommendations to central management by informal Council of Members
Date: 5 April 2017 in Rijssen
Notified/attended[1]: Jan Wind, Johan Riezebos, Bram Dees, Marc Lambriks, Gijs Breedveld, Eelco Schrik, Pieter Dijkshoorn, Arie Quik, Mario van de Borst, Dick Kroon, Antoinette Vietsch, Raymond Godderij (via Skype) Arjan van Krimpen (via skype), Rietta Julemont
Absent: Peter Florijn, Paul van Moerkerken, Robert van den Berg, Peter Hoogkamer
Agenda:
1. How to deal with differences between regions / departments (Johan Riezebos)
Response Paul van Moerkerken*
2. Self-evaluation members' council (Dick Kroon)*
3. Amendment general regulations departments by HB*
Observation Members' council committee
Reaction William Buil and Jan Weerts
4. Proposals by regions Maastricht and Limburg South *
5. Exploration 'Lifelong learning' by STT (Gijs Breedveld)
6. Support and funding member council committee
7. Progress on action points and decisions members' council 1 December 2016
5. Exploration 'Lifelong learning' by STT (Gijs Breedveld)
As several more people have reported that they are late, it is decided by those present to start with topic .5
Stichting Toekomstbeeld der Techniek (STT) is co-hosting KIVI building; Gijs has been asked by STT whether KIVI can contribute to exploration on future of education.
This foresight is being conducted by STT for Ministry of Education (which celebrates 100 years next year) and will outline future scenarios.
It is asked what the scope of this foresight is, this is not yet known. STT has just started this project which will be implemented in the second half of 2017.
Action point: Calling KIVI members who want to contribute to this to report to Gijs.
2. Self-evaluation members' council (Dick Kroon)*
Reason for putting this item on the agenda are concerns about LR; despite new president taking office, LR seems to be in a negative spiral:
- LR struggles to get things done
- Turnout is low (and even lower at preliminary consultations)
- Papers appear not to be read (despite only two meetings in the year)
Question arises: Are we doing good things?
Need for self-evaluation (self-reflection is also often used in business by controlling bodies))
LRC indicative of LR problems? There, too, difficulty in moving from a difficult period to a new mode. Ask LRC members how they see this.
Response from LRC: There are both positive and negative sides/developments
- frustrations around negative things, such as things not going as agreed
- positive is improved contact with HB members, but do not yet see vision or plans HB; there is still a portfolio division HB.
- president (and vice president) difficult to approach due to 80+ hour job
- there is some frustration at LRC about effort put in, very limited attendance at preliminary meeting and net result of this during LR; little success has been achieved by LRC (and LR) in this regard
A discussion follows:
- The thesis is put forward that KIVI has only one (real) problem: Of 270,000 potential members, less than 10% are members; 'KIVI is dead'.
- It is noted that the HB (b)seems to be shifting towards a controlling body, giving/with more powers to the Bureau.
- How to reach young people? LR should be concerned about this issue.
- Bureau and members do not work together, distance is too great.
- Culture in KIVI now one of distrust, how can LR contribute to turnaround/positive process?
Question raised: 'Can the LR sufficiently resist these developments? "
There seems to be no positive input from LR in its current form; is there something wrong in how LR functions? Are we as LR in current composition and entourage able to manage this?
It was established that discussion was of great importance, but also too complex to be resolved this evening.
Proposal: Work out a proposal with a group of members based on the answer to the question: 'if we as KIVI were very successful, what would that look like?'
Arie Quik and Dick Kroon will consider and think through this question; other members are welcome to join.
Action points:
LRC is going to notify HB that this analysis will be carried out.
LRC is going to send call to LR members for participants.
1. How to deal with differences between regions/divisions (Johan Riezebos)
Response Paul van Moerkerken*
Leave this topic for now, given discussion and vision development to come.
There are huge differences between active and inactive departments and regions, gaps between regional and specialist departments and influence new media/communication tools?
Acting together in a more structured way could be more effective.
Is current organisation appropriate for these times? Historically determined from NIRIA/KIVI structure
A tour will be made around the attendees to gather views:
- deploy social media in departments
- there should be a means to present oneself as one KIVI, a condition for this is restructuring
- there is too much distance from the Executive Committee
- there are big differences between departments in terms of external sponsoring/sources
- legacy of merger, (too) much overlap, less board(s) needed for more momentum
- lack of trust HB -- LR, structure would promote this
- poor visibility structure and need for modernisation
- useful would be email addresses or contacts?
- dissolve inactive sections
- regional in north works seek cooperation with other regions and departments
- diversity between departments exists and should be respected
- critical mass of department (5 activities per year), value for money
- atypical
- division into departments not problematic in itself, but the non-active ones are. Instead of dissolving, look more at merging.
- why should all departments have representatives in LR; now a monstrosity arises, a different composition of the LR is needed.
- diversity need not be an objection in a large association. Fixed structures can also cause problems.
The tour is followed by a discussion, which eventually ends for reasons of time without reaching a central conclusion.
Action point: none
3. Amendment of general regulations for sections by HB*
Observation member council committee
Response William Buil and Jan Weerts
It appears that the General Regulations have been amended such that the powers of departmental boards are curtailed. These adjustments were made without notice. After contacting HB (Joliene), it appeared that Martin and Micaela had the regulations amended as an 'editorial change', with the rationale that this was necessary to bring regulations in line with the house style. The power restricting measures were taken away immediately because they would be in violation of the law and statutes.
The amendment was never brought in to the LR, whereas according to the HHR, every amendment has to be approved by the LR. HB (Joliene) undertook/announced to do so.
After discussion, it is proposed to take this up constructively and, together with HB, adjust wording in such a way that it becomes workable and acceptable for all parties involved. Consideration could be given to delegation rules as applied in business. This should then also be included in the treasurers' manual.
Given the possible emotions, it seems wise to work out a proposal with HB in advance to avoid 'hassle'.
Action point: Jan contact HB (Joliene) with proposal to formulate common alternative in advance and submit.
NB. The HB rejects this proposal and wants to discuss the present amendment in the members' council of 15 June.
6. Support and funding members' council committee
LRC polls attendees Is it reasonable to apply for budget for LRC to carry out activities (now not included in budget)? Question is answered in agreement.
Action point: LRC will apply for budget (in next LR?)
7. Progress on action items and decisions Members' Council 1 December 2016
A number of action items were adopted at the December 2016 LR; it was pointed out during the discussion that nothing at all has been heard about these formally or informally. These are as follows:
- Two working groups have been set up to reflect on the design and quality of activities and funding of activities, respectively. Meetings have already taken place; the question is whether minutes of these are available.
Action point: LRC requests minutes of the two working groups on financial models and the design of activities - HB would submit business case of Chartered Engineers Project to finance committee (minutes LR). This does not appear to have happened yet. It seems very useful to those present that this should be done in the shorter term and the results made available (well) in time for the LR.
Action item: LRC asks FINCIE to carry out this action with the HB - The HB would report on follow-up action following proposal 'cafeteria model' from the Mining Department. No follow-up action appears to have been taken yet.
Action point: No action point agreed - Paul Vermeulen's action points had not yet been taken up by another member of the HB since his departure in June last year, as became apparent during the Members' Council meeting on 1 December. They included a workshop cycle on modernising governance and the association structure and an outstanding item from the General Terms and Conditions introduced in 2015. Possibly there were more.
Action point: LRC (Jan) will contact the HB (Joliene) and inquire about the state of play - A key focus of Gerald Schotman for his period as president of KIVI was the social relevance of the association. During the December members' council he was not yet able to give a picture of which policy direction(s) he wanted to take with this and what the spearheads of this policy would be.
Action point: LRC (Jan) will contact the HB (Joliene) and inquire whether more is known in the meantime
4. Proposals regions Maastricht and Limburg South *
The problematic situation in these regions is introduced; both boards want to come out with the HB, do not actually want to bring the issue to the LR. There was an (almost) quarrel with the Bureau and the previous HB, how the situation develops with the current HB is not clear.
Regions have now brought in proposals There are unfortunately no representatives present to explain them.
The first proposal concerns the composition of the HB; it does not now contain the number of HBO-educated engineers required by the statutes.
After discussion on this situation, an action point is formulated:
Action point: LRC will ask HB to bring its composition in line with statutes. In addition to the proposal from Maastricht and region Limburg Zuid, the LRC will ask the HB to post vacancies on its website, as it does for departmental boards.
The second proposal concerns powers of boards of departments and is in line with previous discussions (agenda item 3). In addition, the proposal from Maastricht and Limburg South points to recommendations 3 and 6 from the Guido van Woerkom report of 28 Oct 2016; the proposal will be taken on board by LRC in consultations with HB (action item on agenda item 3).
The third proposal is about board terms and in particular how to deviate from this in (emergency) cases. Boards involved function but fail to find replacements.
The proposed solution does not find support, but neither is there a ready-made solution to this problem. Gijs Breedveld and Marc Lambriks want to try to discuss this issue with the HB and find a solution.
Action point: Marc Lambriks and Gijs Breedveld form group to start dialogue on this with HB. Others wishing to contribute can contact Gijs.
WVTTK/Round question
Thanks to Paul for the hospitality (and the delicious croquettes and sandwiches)!
[1] Because the note-taker was 'virtually' present and some people came in later, there is no verified list of attendees. Apologies for this.
Description
On 5 April from 18:00-21:00, the members' council committee is organising another "informal" members' council. We will then discuss current KIVI topics and formulate questions for the main board.
We want to answer the call not to always meet in The Hague and are therefore pleased to be a guest at Ter Steege Bouw Vastgoed in Rijssen (diagonally opposite Rijssen railway station).
Agenda:
- How to deal with differences between regions/divisions (Johan Riezebos)
- Exploration 'Lifelong learning' by STT (Gijs Breedveld)
- Self-evaluation and reshaping Members' Council (Dick Kroon)
- Progress on action points and decisions Members' Council 1 December 2016 (Jan Wind)
We hope to meet you 5 April in Rijssen,
Sincerely yours,
The Members' Council Committee
Location
Office Ter Steege Bouw Vastgoed Rijssen
Reggesingel 32, Rijssen (near Rijssen train station)
Organiser
Members' Council
Name and contact details for information
Council of Members Committee: Jan Wind dv@kivi.nl