Still very foggy ...
First of all congratulations to the Board, I really like it because it is really international and representing almost all the continents, Snezana is very active and I'm sure she will be a great Chair! Good luck!!
Apart of that I see the MCAA very nebulous and foggy. Many things were unclear from the beginning and, if it is possible they are, much more obscure now!
Well, the MCAA GA should be an assembly of Marie Curie fellows and we (as fellows) did not get any possibility to discuss, even a coffee break was more important than the discussion. The coffee breaks are nice and important for networking, but not for discussing about common problems.
If we want an association working it has to be participated, all the members must be involved and without any communication and transparency there will not be participation.
There are many things that I still must understand.
We came to Brussels mainly for 2 reasons: to elect the Board and approving the statute.
The statute was ready since some time ago, but when I asked in this forum if it was possible to see and discuss it before the meeting the reply was that we were going to see it just at the GA, really fair!
When I asked why the statute was not discussed with the Marie Curie Fellow the reply was that it was too difficult to contact all the members, as researcher I would say that everything is difficult if you do not try ...
Ok the statute is probably legally correct, but the content is mainly garbage. Many things should be changed, but it seems it is difficult to change it!! So we will probably keep it as it is (as someone else decided it has to be). MCAA GA is really independent!!
Now I also understand from Ana's email that the statute was approved during the MCAA GA. Did I maybe fall sleeping during the assembly?! I do not remember that we voted or approved the statute in any other way, but maybe I was really sleeping and do not remember it.
There was some issue also reported in this forum which probably deserved to be discussed and solved before the elections ... the incompatibility of MCFA Board members with their candidacy to the MCAA Board. Nobody wanted to solve the problem even though it was possible to solve it. Now, as expected, we have 3 members of MCFA Board also part of MCAA Board and the chair of MCFA is secretary of MCAA. Great! Not any conflict of interests?? This is not a fight against anybody it is just a fight for the transparency and fairness. It was too easy to be elected in the MCAA coming in 10 people already organized. Someone during the candidate presentation said that it is not fair overlapping the 2 Boards, I hope they will try do it something on this regard since I still think it is a problem, anyway at this point I guess it is objectively impossible.
When I asked what was the problem with MCFA and why we did not follow having that association (maybe with some change of the statute) instead of creating a new one, nobody replied.
When I have tried to say something during the introduction the boss told me that it was no time to talk ... like to the children, but I'm not a child and such kind of behaviour could also be offensive for a child. During the general assembly of MC Fellows I expect to hear discussion of fellows and not one way talk of someone else.
We (as candidate) knew that we had 2 minutes for presenting ourselves just the night before the elections at 22.40!! That's probably why 2 minutes of presentation were more than enough for most of the people, since they did not know that we had that opportunity.
Someone told that after created the association we were able to create any chapter and any working Group we would like to do (and this is also written in the statute) but at the GA we knew that someone already planned everything on this regard!! And we also elected 6 Board members not planned to exist from the statute ... mah!
I could follow with many other points, but I think this is already enough for understanding that the start of the association is not the best. The fog is really thick ...