Mohammad Rezaei
Praveen Kumar
Praveen Kumar
Praveen Kumar
Can online Board elections be a solution? Or why not postponing also the GA?
Dear MCAA Board,
Thank you for your e-mail. It is indeed extremely sad that alredy the conference has been cancelled. I believe though yours was the best decision, given the current situation in Europe.
Nevertheless, according to the second e-mail all members have received, the General Assembly will be still held, with max 40 members. And, in agreement with the agenda, the elections will be run.
I was wondering if it there is a way to rapidly change the statute (i.e. without holding the GA) to introduce the online voting.
This would allow all members to vote from home, given the extreme circumstances.
My general concern is that eventually the elections of the board will depend only on the vote of 40 people, which correspond to about 0.27% of the total number of members and to the 6.6% of the people who were supposed to attend the Assembly and the Conference.
I am already aware that several members like me find very counterintuitive to accept something like that.
If it is not possible to hold the elections online, wouldn't it be better to postpone also the assembly?
I wish you good luck with sorting out all the issues generated by this unfortunate moment.
Thanks in advance and I hope to hear from you soon.
26 Comments
Dear Francesco,
Thank you for your message. The Board has also been grappling with the issue of holding the elections in light of a very limited Annual General Assembly. As Brian alluded to in his response, the Board has been advised that votes cast for the Board elections can only be valid when cast by an Ordinary Member present at, or respresented at, the General Assembly. Representation here means they have given a proxy, and each member present at the GA can have a maximum of 2 proxies. Thus, the representation of members could be at most 3 times the number of members present at the GA. Changing this would require an amendment to our statutes, which is a process that requires a number of steps, including the ones Brian mentioned, as well as the involvement of notarial services and legal support.
Nevertheless, the Board was initially prepared to delay the GA due to the cancellation of the Annual Conference, and thus delay the Elections until we could either conduct them remotely or convene another GA under better circumstances.
However, we were also advised that under the current statutes, and with regard to Belgian law, a delay in our General Assembly beyond the end of March could open up other problems related to the mandate of the exisitng Board which could threaten the continutity and functioning of MCAA. Cheif among those concerns is the mandate of the exisiting Board in the event that no GA or election is held by the end of March.
For those reasons, we still hope to hold a GA by the end of March. I have convened an emergency Board meeting this morning so that we can clarify the details of the GA, as well as the elections. It is our hope that we conduct the Board elections online, but with the understanding that the results would be non-binding. The members present or represented at the GA would be aware of the results of the online election and take them into consideration when voting in the Board elections at the GA.
This is by no means a perfect solution, but we hope that it is one where MCAA members are able to vote and have their preference counted, and the new Board will a) be properly elected as per our statutes at a GA, and b) have the support of the MCAA community via the results of the online voting.
We will update the members later today after the Board meeting.
Thank you,
Matthew
Dear all,
From the beginning my concern was that the nomination of the candidate was not open; to know who has been for which position nominated him/herself. I had asked the association if it would be possible to share the candidate lists to see who has nominated him/herself before the call deadline and to see which positions are less crowded or extremely crowded? Though I was replyed that the list of candidates will only be shared once the call is closed.
I don't recall how was the procedure for the last election but now the result for this election is clear. There is one person for the chair and one person for the secretary position!!! An uncontested single-winner walkover!
And I don't know if there is either a minimum number of votes or minimum fraction of votes cast, which may apply if many voters cast blank votes.
Anyhow, I guess this rule has to be corrected when possible.
Kind regards,
Mohammad Rezaei
Dear Mohammad,
I understand your concern and I have to tell you that last time (in 2018) as I was running for the Secretary position I had the possibility to see online the number of candidates in each group before waiting for the end of the deadline. Apparently things have changed and this is really something to be pointed out. My opinion is that the candidates for the new board are already chosen (like last time) besides the unexpected Coronaviruse situation.
Dear Nina,
Thanks for your comment.
I also remember (but not vividly) that the list was observable before the end of the call in 2018. That's why I wrote the email to prevent an automatic election that candidates deemed elected even without a vote.
Perhaps Matthew as the chair of the association can follow up on this. I can forward my communications if necessary.
Kind regards,
Mohammad
Dear all,
I am disappointed with the lack of transparency with the nominations and overall conduct of elections.
I have had a similar experience during the election of Chair of the BSB-WG.
I sincerely hope this would be addressed in future. I am not sure if there are grievance redressal process in place (?).
Best regards,
Sonu
Dear colleagues,
I have just to say that regarding the election last time- as you remember the current board formed a group with they own webpage called "MCAA mission 2020" and during the time they had a good strategy to collect proxies make promotion and even distributed pamflets like a normal political party. Most of us at the GA 2018 in Leuven were negatively surprised but it is how it is. The contractor was not happy with the conducted steps by this but no measures have been taken. At the end all the members of "Mission 2020" were selected which showed how really MCAA works. This year as you have noticed the same thing happened. A group of members made their webpage and are presenting themselves as a group with their candidates. The members of this group among others are the candidate for the Chair position and Secretary as you have specified in the previous post . I am not saying the members of this group are not highly qualified for the positions but we should ask ourselves is this by the rules of the MCAA regulations, what is the purpose of grouping/aim meaning do other candidates have fair possibilities and how the contractor is seeing this promotion if they are informed.
Good luck with elections and I am sorry that the GA will not be regularlye held in my home country.
Dear friends,
Do we have even an open forum to discussed officially our issues because I believe we share this messages through an organic chemistry thematic via :), instead an official channel made for this unique purpose.
At the same time, there are also discussions on the lateral communication platforms that are semi-official and will be not known to the entire community by default. Many suggestions and viable ideas are getting lost. Not only the conference this year.
I am sure that the only democratic way to perform the elections now is to have them democratically, which means involving the entire community (an online poll suggested by many persons by now or at least a referendum). On the other hand, in fact all the candidates can promote themselves as they wish and consider, this is their right. Two years ago I received even direct messages from the candidates. What is sure for certain that we all should better think by ourselves when making our voting desicions. Despite of what is suggested to us as "an unique option". All of this, when democratically this vote is also available by now.
Take care all of you!
Dear Lidia,
I agree with you but would like to point out that I think all the members of the MCAA should be informed if in the status of the Association is mentioned about grouping as a political party and the opinion of the contractor - meaning the EC which is mostly supporting MCAA. If this is legit then we should start openly to make different groups and promote ourselves (the ones which want to be a part of the election) and to have open transparent debates and etc. not only that the 60% of the previous Board is again grouping and promoting themselves and selecting people which are compatible with their own opinion....Not much of democracy here I am afraid. The candidate for Chair is the current Vice chair and we have 4 more members of the current Board...
Dear Nina,
Of course I agree with you totally. However, still a few days ago we almost had no democratic votes for any team, also that one you comment in your message (that would be the "preferencial" one whether only 40 representatives of our Chapters and WGs voting with two proxies of their convinience each, as well).
Two years ago (the last voting we had in this association) I commented on this during the GA/AC (also among the contractors environment) but the opposite with not very desireable feedback indeed. At that time I read all the candidates profiles. I voted accordingly to what I could read. Personally, I can even vote a person I dislike but knowing she/he will be good or enough for the activity.
What we can expect? The entire democracies act strangely under similar circunstances of lack of a political transparency, even if there are no specific, personal or financial interests in between, aren't there? "People have a power", as they say, but are also influenceable. Do others use this? Of course! Now, would you risk to loose several "friends" only in the name of a similar idea to do things rightly?
What can be done in general terms from now on? An appropriate space (also a principal comunication channel for all the members) must be provided for a gender balanced candidates polll, even if this depends on who wants to be a candidate always... It all starts on the personal decision making level. In this association I saw elections with the candidates disappearing from the candidates list in order to give a chance to "pre-agreed" candidates. Not totally democratic? Perhaps yes (due to only lack of knowledge about the real poll). Unclear and modifiable, as it suits one or another, voting poll procedures? Definitely yes!
Anyway, I wonder also how spontaneous is this particual conversation in here even if generated in the organic chemistry sub-chapter or whatever? Not that I am pointing out anything specific. Perhaps it is as democratic as transparent for all of us!
Take care all of you and good luck with your respective candidacy!
Dear all,
thanks a lot for all your comments. I understand that some decisions might not seem transparent, but I do not think that it consequently implies a lack of democracy. Some members perceive a lack of transparency due to our shortcoming in communicating clearly. This is a problem of many organisations and within MCAA it is mostly due to the fact that we all contribute or free time as volunteers.
I am writing as member of the Board and of the Election Task Force that made the rules for the election this year. In fact, as you know, in our AoA there are just general provisions about how elections work, but to assure equity in the process, we decided to make some rules, also based on the feedback of members from previous elections.
Here, I would like to stress that all the members of the Election task Force have no interest in favoring any of the candidates. The task force, constituted in summer 2019, comprised only members who would not run for the election. This was done to avoid any confict of interest. In addition, the Board had no role in preparing the rules; a vote was required to approve them.
The task force met again yesterday to revise the rules for the election as the situation has changed a lot. With the new rules, that candidates will receive later today, we want to assure that no candidate (or group of candidates) makes use of MCAA resources to get a competitive advantage in the upcoming election.
I would like to remark that never before was an election held online. Since all members can vote, this is going to be the most democratic election in the history of MCAA. Online elections are not legally binding; therefore, we will hold a small GA in Brussels to comply with all legal requirements and ratify the online vote.
Finally, I would like you to keep in mind that this is an extraordinary situation. Even governments have problems with grappling with it. I hope you understand that running the operations of a large organisation with 15k members, while complying to the laws for international not-for-profit organisations is not easy. As volunteers, the Board, the Election Task Force, the GA Task Force, and the contractor team have been working hard to find what we consider the best solution.
Stay healthy, Marco
Dear all,
I think this year, more than other, we had a truly need of performing a "Research and Democracy" conference indeed! How accordingly!
I have an experience in the inverted pyramide scheme of associations. Such a scheme is apparently different to this one that at present and the last years mostly reminds a private company type of organisation more than a professional volunteering made for what,... spreading a message about the MSCA spirit? There is even a theory that all the organisations should adapt such a mentioned scheme, to be then truly "ruled by people" and with representatives "in organisative charge" offerring their humble service to the organisation (what consists a volunteering above all!).
I appreciate the effort of the people, my own including. I am sure we all want good in the world! Nevertheless and given the circumstance, I do not feel personally convoked to exceedingly appreciate a possibility of having now a democratic vote meanwhile it is all this time our basic right.
Take care!
Dear all,
I am not sure if you have been communicated that now there is an election forum to discuss the election matters: https://www.mariecuriealumni.eu/elections-forum
Best wishes,
Mohammad
Hi,
Probably not, we haven't. Excellent! Let's talk in that forum about all these issues related to voting this year as well! The same as for the future, we should better dispose also of a formal, public for the MCAA members channel for every urgent case and especially whether we cannot hold our GA/AC for some reasons. Thanks for the inspiring talks!
Take care!
Dear all,
Given the nature of grievances and concerns raised by the members, it's evident that there will be doubts in the minds of well-meaning members on the way elections are being conducted. In associations like this, the Board is accountable to its members. Depending on the jurisdiction, the board of directors of public associations must comply with the governance standards.
Suggestions: It is worth exploring the possibility of re-doing a fresh call of nominations for the Board positions in an open and transparent way. It can be done online provided it is monitored by an elections committee independent of current board members.
What do fellow MCAAins think about this?
Welcome suggestions.
Sincerely,
Sonu
Dear Sonu,
Thank you for this very valuable suggestion that I think goes in a perfect line with the others added not only in this particular conversation.
The call for nominations was sent via email to all the members in due course, so it seems a sufficiently transparent way of carrying out this important step after all.
However, given the present concerns your specific suggestion to repeat the call could be valuable also due to reputation of the performed mesaures and also the trust issues regarding the future team, in the direct consequence. Of course, in case of being essential for the actual main actors and overall involvement.
Sincerely,
Lidia
Dear colleagues,
I agree with the suggestion of Sonu.
Despite all attempts to emphasize the shortcomings of the call for the nomination, unfortunately, we have not seen an adequate response from the election task force.
Instead of recognizing failures, correcting them and learning from them, the lack of communication is reasoned due to the fact that we all contribute our free time as volunteers.
Perhaps, I should repeat myself again that due to the opacity of the nomination call we are now facing an uncontested single-winner walkover! The decisions of the election task force led to an automatic election that some candidates deemed elected even without a vote. A situation that should be prevented in a democratic election (even for the most qualified nominee) in a healthy organization such as MCAA.
Moreover, it seems there is neither a minimum number of votes nor a minimum fraction of votes cast, which may apply if many voters cast blank votes.
Unfortunately, solution-caused strategy instead of root-cause analysis are all too common and are an indication of an incomplete approach to resolving issues.
Respectfully yours,
Mohammad
Dear friends,
Let me express a suggestion. In view of the difficulties involved in calling a democratic election online we as the association faced the last weeks, in order to repeat now the call for the nomination in the present circumstances, and practically speaking, EVERY presented candidate should resign now from the function. I consider of a great importance also an appropriate security of the upcoming online voting as suggested by the others elsewhere.
Take care!
Dear Sonu, Mohammed, and Lidia,
if you have any concerns concerning the elections, please send a detailed list of issues to the election task force. In this thread, I have read a series of vague claims about low transparency and shortcomings of the call for nomination, but no details have been given. How do you expect the task force to send an adequate response?
In addition, you should not expect that the election task force scans all the threads on the portal. Governance standards require that you address the board in writing with an official and detailed complaint; if you have more than one concerns, please list them individually, clarify what they are, if it's related to posts/emails sent in the past, send copy of them and add the dates. Saying "the nomination was not transparent" is not enough: please state what was not transparent, why you think it was not transparent, what would you have done to make it more transparent, etc. Otherwise, it's impossible to us to understand what the problem is and to provide a clear answer.
Two people have contacted us in writing since the list of candidates was published on the web, and they were satisfied with our response. Given that the three of you seem to be referring to the same issue, I suggest you write one single email together; if we deal with one single email, it will accelerate our response time.
Finally, if you have any suggestions based on your root-cause analysis, please send them along with your analysis. We have always used evidence informed advice from our members, and are happy to consider your insights too.
Best regards, Marco
Dear Marco,
The possibility to be able to share our thoughts or insights here publicly in this forum is the best what could happend to us and much more in these special circumstances. This is also the most easy way to gather the possible new inititatives and contact with people having the same will/willingness of at least express themselves freely.
I am personally very glad that you do not waste this opportunity to hear the opinions of the people in here as well, one way or another, involved in our common MCAA issues. Given the fact that we do not dispose of a referendum mode for our closed society, issuing of the "secret" claims to the mentioned TF will not do regarding the nature of the potential observations or even proposition to change we can or already have at this point of situation.
Perhaps there are more than one vision of what this society means, should mean or is to us all and how it should be ruled: by people, supposedly.
Take care.
Regards,
Lidia
Lidia,
if you want to use this as a discussion forum, you are welcome - that's what it is meant for.
If you want to address specific concerns, please write to the Board and back your arguments with facts and data - that's how people rule associations.
Best wishes, Marco
Marco,
Definetely my thoughts exactly! We are ruled by our people.
I am also sure not only concerns can be a subject of discussion in the MCAA.
Take care!
Regards!
Dear Lidia,
please do get in contact with me as I would like to join with a general statement about the work of the current Board, their decision and the upcoming elections.
I thought the current Chair of the Board wold respond you but not an ordernary Board member as Marco Massia. Waiting for your contact. Thanks!
Dear Nihal,
Supposendly, you are referring to my very post. This is to additionally assure that you may always address personally this or every other issue included in my posts here. I imagine this is right for any of us.
Yes, giving up all the candidates their respective candidancies in the present difficult circumstances, for every perspective involved, is a particular way of cancelling the upcoming elections (practically, due to lack of candidates). In case of not being able to postpone them as well. Finally, as far as I remember, the nominations call was sent this year only once but via mail as a general communication to the entire community (approx. 14.000 people). The subject is not only a matter of our, the MCAA members will or willingness but also both administrative and legislative. It was suggested in my post to those that were commenting this possibility and its nuances for the near future.
Best regards,
Lidia
Dear Francesco,
I was in no way involved in the decision of the current board so I feel free to comment relatively impartially. It is unfortunate that the situation is affecting the democratic rights of MCAA members adversely. Nevertheless, it is extremely clear that MCAA had no other option but to cancel the Annual Conference and continue with the GA with a much reduced attendance. The GA simply must be held before the end of March. It is a matter of complying with the Articles of Association.
You attended the first GA that decided to approve the current Articles of Association. The vast majority of the current board had no vote on that day but are obliged to respect the AoA.
To change the AoA to allow online voting, you must convene a GA and pass a motion to allow such voting. If the attendance at the GA is less than half the membership (this will realistically always be the case), you must convene an Extraordinary GA to approve the AoA change without having half the membership present. This EGA would probably have a tiny attendance. This procedure unfortunately requires more time than is available before the end of March. All boards since November 2013 (including the current board but also you and me) share the responsibility for not changing the AoA to allow online voting.
I would urge the current board to adopt a change of the voting rules at the forthcoming GA and convene a new GA as soon as is practical to elect a new Board.
Warm regards,
Brian