- When?
- June 5, 2020 5:00 PM
- Where?
- Blackboard Collaborate
What?
UPDATE:
Guest link to the session
Guest link to Nestor page (account needed)
Since the H-GMA planned on March 16th was cancelled due to Covid-19 measures, the board will present the financial evaluation and policy evaluation at this GMA. Also at this GMA the board will propose changes to the statutes of the FMF.
You can find the agenda and all the documents (including the proposed statute changes) in your invitation email and on the drive on mijnFMF. We highly encourage you read through those in advance, so that we can limit the discussion time at the GMA.
Due to Corona related restrictions, this GMA will be held online, through Blackboard Collaborate. This will be the first online GMA in the history of the FMF. This has also only recently become allowed via an emergency law by the government.
If you have any questions or comments about the upcoming GMA, please feel free to send them to the board (board@fmf.nl), or check below if they have already been addressed:
Questions and Answers
Q1: Do I need to be a RUG student to attend the GMA through Blackboard Collaborate?
A: No, you do not need to be a RUG student or have a Nestor account.
Q2: According to the current statutes, invitations to the GMA should be sent to members in writing (schriftelijk), but I only received digital invitations. Is that legal?
A: Yes! In (dutch) legal terms, schriftelijk includes via email.
Q3: Article 3.2 says "Het verenigingsjaar loopt van één september tot en met één en dertig augustus." What is the reason to change the bookyear, but not the association year?
A: There are several arguments both for and against this change. It looks like this change would also bring up some other changes, as it changes all articles where "verenigingsjaar" is mentioned (like 4.4, 5.4, 7.3, etc.). In general, the board prefers for the association year to run with the academic year. That makes more sense to us, because that is what members sign up for. Changing this could result in weird situations where a member graduates in August but attends an activity in July for which they are not a member anymore.
Q4: Article 5.3 contains the word "geconvoceerd" how many people at the GMA know what this means?
A: We cannot attest to that (yet).
Q5: Considering both the FMF and Francken had situations where it would have been useful to suspend members, does the board think a possibility to suspend a member has to be added to the statutes?
A: Based on past experiences of FMF and Francken, and a rich imagination for extreme scenarios, the board believes this could be a valid addition to our statutes. Unfortunately we cannot include this into the discussion at this GMA, but we will include it as a proposal for the GMA on the 12th.
Q6: In article 9.2 what are Almunusleden?
A: We believe it is an incorrectly spelled word which is meant to be "alumnusleden", which means "alumnus members".
Q7: What is the meaning of article 19.2? A: Article 19.2 references ''oordeel'' from article 19.1. We all believe that "oordeel" here refers to the result of the voting that the chair of the GMA states, so if you believe that the voting was done improperly, you can say that right after the chair tells the GMA the result of the voting and then there will be another voting that will replace the previous voting. If one interprets this article in a way where "oordeel" refers to the statement that's being voted on, another vote wouldn't solve the problem, so we believe that our interpretation is the intended one.
Q8: Article 20.3 suggest we can call a GMA in the U-krant. Does the board think this is a good way to announce a GMA?
A: We believe an alternative way to invite members to the GMA is necessary, because 10 (non board-) members are allowed to call a GMA, but they don't have access to the members administration, so they can't use the option in article 20.2. Another, but more extreme case would be that we lose our members administration, which would result in no one being able to use option 20.2. If you have an alternative to this alternative, please email it to us at board@fmf.nl.
Q9: Online GMAs can be held but the intention is the following: "Het bestuur behandelt alleen lopende zaken en stelt ingrijpende beslissingen waarvoor besluitvorming door de ALV noodzakelijk is zo veel mogelijk uit". Could the board clarify why the statutes need changing now, and this can not possibly be postponed?
A: On the 2nd of June 2020 we announced the candidate 62nd board of the FMF, which consists of 6 motivated and enthusiastic people! As you may also know, the past few years haven't been easy for the association, so we are really pleased and excited to have all 6 board functions filled next year.
However, two of the candidates are donors and not members, and according to the statutes of the FMF, only those members who have already been a member of the FMF for 1 year can be installed as board members. Upon investigating, it turned out that FMF is the only association at the FSE to have such a rule in the statutes, which suggests that the rule isn't strictly necessary. Therefore, with the Association's best interests at heart, we propose to remove this rule from our statutes.
That is our primary motivation for proposing changes to statutes. On top of that, since changing statutes is an extensive and expensive process, we propose to make several more useful and meaningful changes to bring our statutes more up-to-date and better represent FMF's current interests.
Q10: Assuming your answer to the previous question has to do with some candidate board member. Could this change of statutes not be done in the beginning of September, so that we can use the upcoming GMA, on June 5th, to discuss the actual contents the whole statutes, instead of just your proposed changes?
A: We think it is a good idea to discuss other possible changes with the GMA. However, for the changes concerning candidate board members, we prefer to have a vote on them early on, so that we can start the knowledge transfer period with the candidates. Without voting, or at least formally discussing these statute changes with the GMA we do not believe we have reasonable grounds to share private information with the candidates which has a significant negative impact on their education. (also, see answer to Q12)
Q11: Why is the board willing to admit there are other possible changes than the ones proposed that would improve the statutes, but is it not willing to discuss adding them to the list of proposed changes?
A: The list of changes we proposed has been checked by a notary and presented to the members in proper and final formulation 7 days prior to the GMA. By our statutes that is a requirement. Any changes proposed by members after the 7 days mark have been noted down and can be discussed at a later GMA. (see answer to Q12)
Q12: Given that changing the statutes costs quite a lot of money, does the board think this should be done partially?
A: No. This is why the board proposes to have 4 GMAs dedicated to changing the statutes.
June 5
The board presents their initial proposal. GMA discusses and votes. Because we see it as unlikely that 1/5 of the total number of members attends this GMA, the changes are not yet formally approved.
June 12
GMA takes a second vote on the changes proposed and voted on at the GMA on June 5. Changes are formally approved with a 2/3 majority of valid votes cast.
The GMA proposes and discusses other possibly useful changes.
September n (where n is a natural number between 1 and 11)
The board formally proposes the changes favored at the previous GMA. GMA discusses and votes. Once again, unless 1/5 of the total number of members attend this GMA, the changes are not yet formally approved.
September n+k (where k is a natural number between 7 and 14)
GMA takes a second vote on the changes proposed and voted on at the GMA on June 5. Changes are formally approved with a 2/3 majority of valid votes cast.
Later
Transfer GMA.
Thank you to all the members who have been sending in their questions and comments!