S 2014 BNC MEETING - European Youth Parliament...Europe ï project, improving access to academic journals for conducting research when preparing for sessions and unconventional topics;

SPRING 2014 BNC MEETING MINUTES

BERLIN, MAY 9TH–11TH, 2014

Board of National Committees (BNC)

Spring 2014 BNC Meeting – Minutes

This document was elaborated by the BNC Coordinators – Arnolds Eizenšmits, Pauline Chetail and Weronika Myck. Questions? Comments? Please send an e-mail to [email protected].

1/13

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Participants ............................................................................................................................................................................. 2

2. BNC Training ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3

3. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3

4. National Committee recognitions – EYP Luxembourg and EYP Azerbaijan ..................................................... 3

5. Governing Body update ....................................................................................................................................................... 4

6. International Office update ................................................................................................................................................ 5

7. Change of the Charter of the EYP ..................................................................................................................................... 5

8. Discussion on reforming the recommendation system ............................................................................................ 7

9. Review of the Policy Compilation of the EYP ............................................................................................................... 8

10. BNC Working Procedure reform ................................................................................................................................. 11

11. Discussion on Tampere 2015 International Session format ............................................................................. 12

12. Final remarks..................................................................................................................................................................... 13

All documents relevant to this meeting, including the Preparation Kit and the Executive

Summary, can be found in this folder.

mailto:[email protected]

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B6qKhVFPVC8nQ09zMTZXZjBTOGc&usp=sharing



This document was elaborated by the BNC Coordinators – Arnolds Eizenšmits, Pauline Chetail and Weronika Myck. Questions? Comments? Please send an e-mail to [email protected].

2/13

1. PARTICIPANTS

Representatives of National Committees (NCs)

Albania Ilir Kola

Armenia Areg Kochinyan

Austria Jelena Stevanovic

Azerbaijan Badir Bayram

Milana Ibrahimova

Belarus Alan Flowers

Belgium Hans Maes

Cyprus Maria Pashi

Ioanna Yiallourides

Czech Republic Marek Navrátil

Estonia Anna-Helena Saarso

Triin Kaup

Finland Jenni Röynä

France Célia Poncelin

Germany Franziska Maier

Lorenz Stree

Greece Dionysius Theodoropoulos

Ireland Kieran McNulty

Italy Lorenzo Parrulli

*Kosovo Egzon Gashi

Latvia Gatis Bērziņš

Lithuania Paulius Dovidavičius

Luxembourg Patrick Azevedo

Kenisha van Keulen

Norway Marit Huseby

Lars Erik Nyborg

Poland Krzysztof Ignaciuk

Maciej Kuczyński

Portugal Ana Isabel Gonçalves

Russia Daria Chernomorskaya

Serbia Marko Kazic

Slovakia Lenka Petrakova

Spain Juan Amaya

Albert Reverendo

Sweden Noura Berrouba

Switzerland Nora Wilhelm

Delia Berner

The Netherlands Khalid El Ghoul

Jana Trifunovic

Turkey Erdem Osman Topçu

Ukraine Tetiana Korniichuk

Roksolana Pidlasa

United Kingdom Josh Leyden

Proxies

EYP Croatia delegated proxy to EYP Serbia

EYP Hungary delegated proxy to EYP Austria

EYP Romania delegated proxy to EYP Sweden

Recognised NCs without representatives

EYP Georgia, EYP Macedonia, EYP Moldova

BNC Coordinators

Arnolds Eizenšmits, BNC Coordinator

Pauline Chetail, BNC Assistant Coordinator

Weronika Myck, BNC Co-Assistant Coordinator

International Office

Krista Simberg, Executive Director

Stefan Vandenhende, Project Manager

Jacob Düringer, Project Manager

Beáta Veisová, Intern

Mathilde Pascal, Intern

Governing Body (GB)

Mark Brakel, GB Coordinator

Dmytro Honcharenko, GB Member

Schima Labitsch, GB Member




This document was elaborated by the BNC Coordinators – Arnolds Eizenšmits, Pauline Chetail and Weronika Myck.

Questions? Comments? Please send an e-mail to [email protected].

3/13

2. BNC TRAINING

a) Quick energiser and a name game;

b) Presentation on EYP International (by the Executive Director);

c) Presentation of the BNC – summary of the Autumn 2013 Meeting in London and the work of the BNC

since then (by the BNC Coordinators);

d) Meeting preparation – presentation of the points on the Agenda (by the BNC Coordinators).

3. INTRODUCTION

a) Energetic round of introductions

All the participants had a chance to present themselves, introducing their name and where they come

from.

b) Welcome words

The International Office welcomed the participants and provided information on practical aspects.

The BNC Coordinators:

i. Reminded of the decisions taken at the Autumn 2013 Meeting in London;

ii. Outlined the work of the BNC between these two meetings;

iii. Presented the Agenda of the meeting and introduced several procedural innovations for this

meeting (placards, voting cards and a fixed seating arrangement);

iv. Announced proxy votes valid for the meeting (EYP Croatia to EYP Serbia, EYP Hungary to EYP

Austria and EYP Romania to EYP Sweden).

4. NATIONAL COMMITTEE RECOGNITIONS – EYP LUXEMBOURG AND EYP AZERBAIJAN

a) EYP Luxembourg (documents are available here):

i. In addition to the relevant documents that were published to the BNC before the meeting, EYP

Luxembourg briefly presented its work and achievements;

ii. Despite a few concerns, the GB was impressed by the development of EYP Luxembourg, its

management and first National Selection Conference (NSC), and endorsed the application;

iii. A brief discussion took place on how are the Board members of EYP Luxembourg elected, several

NCs shared examples of their structures;

iv. EYP Luxembourg was recognised as the 37th National Committee (NC) of the EYP with 32 votes in

favour, 0 votes against, 0 abstentions (one NC missing).

b) EYP Azerbaijan (documents are available here):

i. EYP Azerbaijan briefly presented its work and achievements;


https://drive.google.com/a/tellus.lv/folderview?id=0B6qKhVFPVC8nRk1fVWZralBSTkU&usp=sharing&tid=0B6qKhVFPVC8nQ09zMTZXZjBTOGc

https://drive.google.com/a/tellus.lv/folderview?id=0B6qKhVFPVC8nY0t3czVFcF9ZQzA&usp=sharing&tid=0B6qKhVFPVC8nQ09zMTZXZjBTOGc





4/13

ii. The GB praised the NSC organised by EYP Azerbaijan and endorsed its application, whilst

mentioning concerns about the relations with neighbouring NCs and encouraged more Alumni to

attend events abroad;

iii. EYP Armenia raised several concerns, especially about an incident at the Riga 2014 International

Session between delegates of EYP Azerbaijan and EYP Armenia (in response, several NCs

dismissed this concern as being a personal incident which should not be linked to the NC as such)

and the relations between the NC and the national government, and suggested to prolong the

Candidate status for a year to ensure full compliance;

iv. Some concerns were raised about the lack of Chaperones at certain IS and organisational issues,

whilst several NCs praised the progress made since the Autumn 2012 BNC Meeting;

v. EYP Azerbaijan was recognised as the 38th National Committee of the EYP with 31 votes in

favour, 1 vote against, 0 abstentions (one NC missing).

From this point onwards, the number of recognised National Committees present at the meeting

increased to 35.

5. GOVERNING BODY UPDATE

a) Mark updated the BNC Representatives on the recent developments of the GB (the Power Point

presentation can be found here);

b) There were also updates on the work of the Councils:

The Academic Council is helping to draft the topics for Barcelona IS, providing feedback for the

European Youth Polls and will be working on several projects. Those include revising the

Academic Format of sessions, elaborating a Topic Database, cooperating with the ‘Understanding

Europe’ project, improving access to academic journals for conducting research when preparing

for sessions and unconventional topics;

The Educational Council has been gathering input from teachers on teacher programmes at

International Sessions and has raised the issue of teacher fees that will be discussed by the GB at

its next meeting;

The Trainings and Alumni Development Council will keep on updating materials and guides,

and is also looking for other activities apart from trainings to help Alumni develop. The next big

project is the T4ET 2014 which will take place in Estonia this August;

The Regional Development Council will keep supporting struggling and newly established NCs

(looking for NC representatives to join Buddy Groups), as well as developing the ‘Excellent’ NC

concept;

c) With the GB elections coming up in July, the GB will try to increase the voter turnout and get more

candidates;

d) The BNC Representatives had the chance to comment and ask questions;

e) Amongst other points, the support mechanism in place for NCs wishing to organise international

trainings was clarified (interested NCs should contact the GB to get all the possible materials and help

with the content, every year there is a call for NCs to apply for funding) and concerns about the role of

the GB in the Councils were raised (suggesting the need to perhaps adjust the current rules).


https://docs.google.com/a/tellus.lv/file/d/0B6qKhVFPVC8nVkdJMWd3TTVjTWtoS001d05fN0tFY1BDcEhv/edit





5/13

6. INTERNATIONAL OFFICE UPDATE

a) Krista updated the BNC Representatives on the recent developments of the International Office and

its projects (the report can be found here);

b) The BNC Representatives had the chance to comment and ask questions;

c) Amongst other points, the reliability of the data of the EYP Census was questioned (the Office

promised to explore the possibility of providing more precise figures), the need to further clarify the

Erasmus+ application process and actions in case of a mismatch between the initial project and origin

of participants actually hosted was expressed, and it was suggested to increase the voting period for

GB elections from one to two weeks, in order to increase turnout (the Office explained that this would

most likely not help and prefers a shorter, more ‘intensive’ period for voting).

7. CHANGE OF THE CHARTER OF THE EYP

a) Rationale for the Charter Change presented by the GB (relevant documents available here)

The Governing Body presented a draft proposal to Change the Charter of the EYP to the BNC on March

3rd, 2014, then submitted in its final form on April 6th, 2014. Mark, the GB Coordinator, outlined the

rationale behind the Charter change and reviewed the proposed changes. Notably, he:

i. Explained that the new Charter includes a simpler and clearer language, thus aiming to make the

Charter more accessible to all Alumni;

ii. Emphasised that most of the changes are, therefore, only technical;

iii. Clarified that any content changes made are in line with the recent Governance Reform.

Furthermore, the GB proposed that these discussions are chaired by a member of the GB (Mark), since

he already had extensively debated these changes when the GB was elaborating them and this would

allow for greater efficiency. At the same time, Mark would do it in a completely impartial way and the

voting on the Charter would still be carried out by the BNC Coordinators. The BNC approved this

suggestion by a show of voting cards.

b) Articles which raised no objections from the BNC:

i. Article 1;

ii. Article 2;

iii. Article 7;

iv. Article 9;

v. Article 11;

vi. Article 13.

c) Articles which generated some debate, but were approved with no amendments:

i. Article 10 – Concerns were raised regarding the GB’s proposal to remove the obligation for the

Executive Director (ED) to be a member of the GB, as some Representatives felt that it could

potentially harm the checks and balances of the organisation and prevent the full transparency of

GB meetings. The ED and the GB Coordinator reminded the BNC that this provision would not in


https://docs.google.com/a/tellus.lv/file/d/0B6qKhVFPVC8nbGZub3VXTjc0dUgxMUtobk9RQy1lelZhSFA0/edit

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B6qKhVFPVC8ncTBuRzhPN1FyVWM&usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B6qKhVFPVC8ncTBuRzhPN1FyVWM&usp=sharing





6/13

practice change the fact that the ED attends GB meetings and supports the GB in its tasks.

Furthermore, this new provision confirms the aspiration of the Governance Reform to separate

the ‘executive’ role of the ED from the ‘political’ role of the GB. In the end, the BNC decided not to

amend Article 10.

ii. Article 12 – Some points were raised, ranging from the need to make GB elections more

transparent, potentially extending the pool of voters (cf. discussion on Article 3) and criticism on

the elimination of NC nominations for GB elections. The Article was not amended.

iii. Article 14 – The GB clarified that the BNC was not involved in nominating the Executive Director

because the executive staff of the EYP does not need to be backed by the BNC as they are not

‘political’ actors in the organisation, and the current procedure is also more efficient.

iv. Article 17 – A discussion arose on whether the article should be amended to change the two-thirds

majority of votes cast by the BNC needed to a simple majority. The Article was ultimately not

amended.

d) Articles which were amended by the BNC:

i. Article 3 – Concerns were raised regarding the pool of voters for GB elections, even though the

definition of the pool in the proposed Charter had not changed from the previous version. Several

BNC Representatives proposed to extend the pool of voters (notably, by including Officials at any

session or NC Board members that have not attended International Sessions). Other

Representatives, however, feared that this would not solve the issue of low turnout for GB

elections and may prove difficult to be implemented. The BNC decided to postpone this debate and

not amend Clause 1 of Article 3 yet. Otherwise, an amendment by EYP Poland to modify the

spelling of ‘teambuilding’ to ‘team building’ in Clause 2 was adopted.

ii. Article 4 – Concerns were raised regarding the policy on eligible countries to join the EYP,

especially those which have a pending status for the Council of Europe. Some Representatives

suggested regarding all countries with pending and/or former status as eligible, whereas others

feared that it might complicate the situation for EYP as an organisation given the ever changing

political status of European countries. The BNC ultimately agreed not to amend this point.

However, Clause 1 was amended like this: “National Committees are recognised chapters

organisations of EYP and are legally independent from the Schwarzkopf Foundation.” An

amendment of Clause 2 by EYP Belarus to clarify that Belarus is an exception to the policy (“At

most one organisation from each member of the Council of Europe, and also Belarus, (including

Belarus which has a pending candidate status) is eligible to apply for recognition.”) was also

approved.

iii. Article 5 – The BNC agreed to amend Clause 1 of this Article like this: “Autonomous Committees

are recognised chapters organisations of EYP and are legally independent from the Schwarzkopf

Foundation.” Moreover, Clause 2 was questioned but no amendments were adopted.

iv. Article 6 – The BNC accepted the proposal by EYP Switzerland to amend Clause 2 b as follows: “be

a legally independent and non-profit organisation.”

v. Article 8 – The BNC agreed to amend Clause 1 like this: “The Governing Body can suspend a

National Committee when it acts in a way that is contrary to the aims of EYP fundamentally

incompatible with the aims of EYP and/or grossly violates the requirements.” Furthermore, some






7/13

representatives feared that the suspension process, as outlined in the Charter, is unclear, does not

allow for a quick reaction in case an issue arises, and does not give enough power to the BNC to

overrule a decision by the GB rapidly. The GB clarified that the suspension is immediate in any

case and the period after that is only to confirm suspension. Several Representatives suggested

amendments on Clause 2 to address the issue but none gained sufficient approval by the BNC. The

BNC agreed to postpone this debate, thus allowing for a better proposal to be suggested.

vi. Article 15 – The BNC argued that the Executive Director’s attendance of GB meetings should still

be an obligation and not only a ‘good practice’, therefore Clause 1 of Article 15 was amended as

follows: “The Executive Director implements the decisions of the Board of National Committees and

the Governing Body, and is expected to be in attendance at their meetings.”

vii. Article 16 – Some Representatives thought that the priority status procedure for the BNC to

approve a GB decision was unclear in case it failed to make a decision within the four week

period. To address this, the BNC accepted a proposal by EYP Italy to amend Clause 4 as follows:

“The Governing Body may ask the Board of National Committees to give a policy proposal priority

status. The Board of National Committees has to decide upon this request for priority status within

four weeks. When If the Board of National Committees confirms priority status or fails to vote on it

within this time period, the Governing Body can pass this proposal independently.”

viii. Article 18 – For the sake of simplicity and since it is already stated in previous Articles of the

Charter, the BNC amended Clause 2 to read: “The provisions of this Charter and its subsequent

amendments bind the signatory National Committees, unless a National Committee renounces its

recognised status to the Executive Director in writing. This implies the immediate loss of the rights

associated with the National Committee status, including the right to use the name “European

Youth Parliament” as outlined in Article 6.1.”

e) The BNC approved the amended version of the Charter of the EYP unanimously (35 votes in favour, 0

against, 0 abstentions).

8. DISCUSSION ON REFORMING THE RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM

Hans Maes, Chairperson of the Working Group on Reforming the Recommendation System, presented the

proposal, its rationale (which can be found here) and emphasised that the WG concluded that there is no

way to successfully improve the current system. Therefore, it proposes a completely new procedure.

Afterwards, the floor was opened for questions and comments from National Committees. Amongst the

many points raised:

i. EYP Estonia asked if a person who had more than one recommendation could choose which to submit

to a selection panel (Hans said the WG would suggest it);

ii. It was discussed if written feedback should be mandatory to all Delegates (the WG recognises the

substantial amount of work it would imply and, hence, considers it recommendable but not feasible);

iii. Evaluation forms were discussed, with EYP Switzerland suggesting that being too long they can

reduce motivation – as a reply, EYP Norway suggested reducing the number of questions in an

evaluation form. Nevertheless, the WG does not support this suggestion because that would result in

lower quality evaluations;


https://drive.google.com/a/tellus.lv/folderview?id=0B6qKhVFPVC8nYkdWQVE0S1QwS1k&usp=sharing&tid=0B6qKhVFPVC8nQ09zMTZXZjBTOGc





8/13

iv. Methods of evaluating were discussed, with EYP Austria suggesting to abolish grading and keep

comments as the only method – the WG agrees the grading system is very subjective, but does not

want to abolish it;

v. EYP Germany pointed out that evaluations might get outdated quickly, especially when an individual

takes part in many sessions and trainings, which help to develop;

vi. EYP Luxembourg asked about who can access the evaluation forms – Hans clarified that it is only the

person itself and, up until now, the HR Officer, but that should not be the case in the future as a result

of integrating the system on the Alumni Network website;

vii. EYP Spain argued in favour of giving a chance for a person receiving an evaluation to comment on it;

viii. EYP Cyprus raised a concern that the proposal to not make evaluations mandatory might

demotivate Alumni to, in the long-run, submit any evaluations at all;

ix. The issue of how to evaluate session Presidents was raised. EYP Ukraine suggested that Head-

Organisers shout submit written evaluations on session Presidents. In response, Hans explained

that the WG had discussed the issue, but only for International Sessions – by the National Organising

Committee, the GB and potentially the VPs, too. However, the WG had concluded that it would have

little value, because usually IS Presidents quit EYP after presiding. EYP Turkey argued against the

NOC evaluating the President. Finally, EYP Germany was in favour of evaluating session Presidents

at regional and national level events, since it would also be relevant and useful for IS selection

panels.

Before closing this part of the meeting, almost all NCs supported the proposal to abolish

recommendations as a mandatory requirement for applications to International Sessions by an

indicative vote, thus endorsing the general approach of the WG. The WG has promised to evaluate

this input and finalise its proposal after the meeting.

9. REVIEW OF THE POLICY COMPILATION OF THE EYP

The BNC was presented with a comprehensive Policy Compilation Review by the Governing Body on

April 12th, 2014 (all the Policies can be found here).

Similarly to the discussions on approving changes of the Charter of the EYP, the BNC approved the GB’s

suggestion that a Member of the GB (Schima) would moderate the discussions on the Policy Compilation

Review.

Afterwards, the GB proposed to delete the current Policy Compilation. This was approved with 34 votes

in favour, 0 votes against, 0 abstentions (one NC missing).

Moving on, the BNC had a few minutes to once again read the text of the proposed Policies and then it

moved on to voting on four Policies that had no content changes following the reform. Those were the

Policies on:

i. Child Protection (approved with 33 votes in favour, 0 votes gainst, 1 abstentions (one NC

missing));

ii. Selection of International Session Officials (approved with 34 votes in favour, 0 votes against, 0

abstentions (one NC missing));


https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B6qKhVFPVC8nS0ZzT0VIelJ2RmM&usp=sharing





9/13

iii. Delegation Allocation (approved with 34 votes in favour, 0 votes against, 0 abstentions (one NC

missing));

iv. Code of Conduct (approved with 34 votes in favour, 0 votes against, 0 abstentions (one NC

missing)).

Then the GB presented the rationale of the Policy on National Committee Recognition – it simplifies

the recognition criteria and process. There were no comments and it was approved with 34 votes in

favour, 0 votes against, 0 abstentions (one NC missing).

The Policy on Evaluation and Recommendation presents only one change in its Clause 6 by which the

GB proposes to get rid of the old competence framework. The BNC adopted an amendment by EYP

Austria, so that Clause 6 reads: “The evaluation section presents the EYP Competence Framework.

Evaluations consist of a grading scheme as well as written comments. The use of the grading scheme is

mandatory. Sub-competence grading is not required.”

The whole Policy was approved with 34 votes in favour, 0 votes against, 0 abstentions (one NC

missing).

The Policy on International Sessions introduces several changes. As proposed by EYP Ukraine, Clause

7 was amended to read: “Only delegates between the ages of 16 to 19 that have been selected at a National

Selection Conference are eligible to participate in a spring or autumn International Session (with the

necessary flexibility for certain National Committees). A National Selection Conference has to involve more

than 30 students national delegates from at least three educational institutions.”

Clause 8 about teachers or adults that accompany delegates at autumn and spring ISs caused a heated

debate during which several NCs expressed their concerns about the financial difficulties of sending

teachers. Clause 8 was deleted and later reinstated, because a better alternative was not found.

An amendment by EYP Spain, EYP Ireland and EYP United Kingdom to replace ‘alcoholic beverages’ by

‘spirits’ in Clause 15 was discussed because of the sponsorship situation for the upcoming Barcelona

2014 IS, but the amendment did not pass.

Clause 21, which suggests that, in line with the Governance Reform, the GB will speak as a representative

of the EYP during the Opening Ceremony of International Sessions was questioned by EYP Poland and

caused debate. The options of having only a representative of the GB, the Executive Director or both

giving speeches were considered. In the end, the BNC decided to amend Clause 21 like this: “An

International Session must include a formal Opening Ceremony with speeches by the Session President, a

Member of the Governing Body the Executive Director, a representative of the National Organising

Committee and by a delegate representing the host National Committee of the past and current

International Session respectively. A small number of guest speakers from public institutions and session

partners may also deliver a speech.”

Moreover, the procedural rules of the General Assembly and Resolutions at International Sessions were

discussed and the BNC decided to amend several Clauses. As suggested by EYP Belgium, Clause 28 now

reads: “The motion for a resolution is submitted to a vote by a show of hands. The exact number of votes is

collected if a clear result is not apparent. A motion for a resolution requires a majority (more votes in favour

than against) to pass. Each delegate has one vote. No proxy voting is allowed.”






10/13

By adding a sentence, Clause 29 was amended to read: “The Governing Body provides a General Assembly

working procedure. No deviations from this working procedure are allowed. Requests to deviate from this

working procedure can be submitted to the Governing Body by either the International Session President or

the National Organising Committee.”

Similarly, Clause 31 now reads: “The Governing Body provides a template for the resolutions. No

deviations from this template are allowed. Requests to deviate from this template can be submitted to the

Governing Body by either the International Session President or the National Organising Committee.”

The whole Policy was approved with 33 votes in favour, 1 vote against, 0 abstentions (one NC

missing).

As for each Policy, the Governing Body firstly explained the changes to the Policy on the Governing

Body and then opened the floor for questions and comments. It turned out to be not very controversial. A

proposal by EYP Norway to amend Clause 5 so that it is not obligatory for teachers running in the GB

elections to also submit a video was rejected.

The Policy was approved with 35 votes in favour, 0 votes against, 0 abstentions.

Two amendments were submitted on the Policy on Councils. As proposed by EYP Austria, Clause 1 was

amended to read: “The Governing Body can establish councils with certain areas of responsibility and sets

their mandate. Councils act independently within a broad mandate set out by the Governing Body. The

Executive Director supervises the work of the councils and supports them in their work.”

The second amendment came from the Training and Alumni Development Council. First of all, a short

discussion arose regarding whether the BNC should even consider an amendment proposed by a Council.

By a show of voting cards the BNC agreed to examine the amendment. The amendment on Clause 10

itself, however, failed.

The Policy was approved with 35 votes in favour, 0 votes against, 0 abstentions.

Finally, the Policy on Communication was discussed and, as foreseen, was the most controversial Policy

of all. As proposed by EYP Sweden, Clause 1 was amended to read: “EYP is a politically and religiously

neutral organisation.”

Following incidents regarding potentially political involvement by some National Committees, EYP

Ireland started a discussion on the political neutrality of the EYP and how should it be enforced. After a

very engaged discussion, the BNC decided to add Clause 4 to the Policy, which reads as follows: “National

Committees are not allowed to express any political opinion in their official communications.” Furthermore,

many NCs expressed their wish to continue discussing this issue in the future.

With the Policy Compilation Review, the GB changed the section of ‘Languages of EYP’, namely by

removing French as a working language and making all languages of the countries where EYP has a

National Committee as official languages of the EYP. An amendment by EYP France to change Clauses 6

and 7 was extensively discussed. Aspects such as organising National Selection Conferences in other

languages than English, the added value of all the languages as official languages of the EYP, attracting

delegates by Outreach programmes and the potential importance for sponsors of having French as a

working language were considered. In particular, a proposed clause “English and French are the official

languages of the EYP, used for external communication of the office, International Sessions’ debates and






11/13

written materials.” was rejected by 14 votes in favour, 21 against and 0 abstentions. Ultimately, the BNC

rejected all the amendments by EYP France and the section of ‘Languages of EYP’ remained as proposed

by the GB.

The entire Policy was approved with 27 votes in favour, 1 vote against, 7 abstentions.

10. BNC WORKING PROCEDURE REFORM

The proposal to reform the BNC Working Procedure was presented to the NCs by Sophie Hall as the

Chairperson of the Working Group formed after the last BNC meeting (the Proposal can be found here).

The BNC quickly went through Part A of the Proposal (‘Role and Tasks of the BNC’) without objections.

Two amendments were approved regarding Part B of the Proposal (‘Composition’). Firstly, the BNC

endorsed an amendment submitted by EYP Luxemburg to allow both recognised NCs and Initiatives to

send two BNC Representatives to BNC meetings. Furthermore, a debate on limiting the number of proxies

allowed to be given for a NC took place and the BNC approved an amendment by EYP Germany to limit

the maximum number of proxies to two per NC.

Part C of the Proposal (‘Meeting’) received no amendments.

Part D of the Proposal (‘Proposals’) received this amendment –“The BNC, by simple majority vote, can

decide to discuss main motions and amendments submitted after the corresponding deadline” –, which

was approved.

Part E of the Proposal (‘Voting’) was extensively discussed, as it has on several occasions at previous

meetings been unclear what the BNC understands as a ‘simple majority vote’. The possibility of

clarifying this, as well as changing the voting itself to the ‘absolute majority’ principle was considered

but, due to the lack of consensus and time constraints, this debate had to be postponed to be held

online after the meeting.

Part F of the Proposal (‘Minutes’) received a friendly amendment from the Working Group stating that

an Executive Summary must be sent out in a week after a BNC Meeting which was approved.

As for the Part G of the Proposal (‘Board of the BNC’), the challenge of getting Alumni to apply as BNC

Coordinators was mentioned. Furthermore, an amendment by EYP Austria to delete Clause G.2.4. (“A

vote of no confidence is passed with a two-thirds majority.”) was approved.

Whilst examining Part H of the Proposal (‘Elections of the board’), some concerns were raised about the

proposed system, though no amendments were received. The proposal to have all the BNC

Coordinators step down and new elections be held as soon as the new BNC working procedure is

adopted, in order to accommodate the new structure, mandate and election process of the BNC

Board (hitherto, the Coordinators’ Team), was approved.

Finally, the need to formalise the BNC Working Groups and clarifying the competences of the BNC

regarding the budget of the International Office was mentioned whilst discussing Part J of the Proposal

(‘Committees’), but no amendments were received.


https://drive.google.com/a/tellus.lv/folderview?id=0B6qKhVFPVC8nb1hhYkNrMEw3dnc&usp=sharing&tid=0B6qKhVFPVC8nQ09zMTZXZjBTOGc





12/13

Due to the lack of time to discuss all the parts of the Proposal thoroughly by BNC Representatives (the

BNC decided to prioritise finalising the review of the Policy Compilation), the new BNC Working

Procedure was not adopted yet. The discussion will be finalised after this meeting and voting on

amendments, as well as the Proposal as a whole, will take place online before the Autumn 2014

BNC Meeting.

11. DISCUSSION ON THE TAMPERE 2015 INTERNATIONAL SESSION FORMAT

Due to the unfortunate cancellation of the autumn 2014 IS that was to take place in Kiev, NCs face

various direct consequences on their work and, therefore, it was decided to prioritise this issue and

discuss it during the ‘Any Other Business’ slot on Sunday, May 11th. This document summarises the

debate initiated by EYP Switzerland and presents options suggested by National Committees on how to

solve the problem (relevant documents can be found here).

Summary of the discussion

EYP Switzerland presented their proposal suggesting the change of the status of the Summer

International Session in Tampere to a usual International Session, which would be attended by the

delegates originally selected for the Kiev International Session. A representative of EYP Switzerland

then outlined the rationale behind the proposal, which included the reduction of the number of

delegates from that EYP generation who would get an IS experience, specific implications to those NCs

who already selected delegates to go to Kiev and those that hold two National Selection Sessions per

year. EYP Finland then presented their stance on the issue referring to the fact that Tampere IS would

take place a significant amount of time after Kiev was supposed to and the issue surrounding

accompanying teachers.

Although few NCs are still supporting the idea of changing the format of Tampere IS and inviting

selected delegations together with their chaperones to Finland, the overall consensus reached

recognised the problem with further difficulties as well as additional costs for the organisers who

already have been working towards the Session and decided to think of other possible solutions.

Recommendations by the Board of National Committees

The Board of National Committees thus decided to support the idea originally proposed by EYP Turkey

and suggested by EYP Finland, and instead of sending their delegations initially selected for Kiev IS to

Tampere, delegates will be sent to International Fora, as proposed by the International Office.

Therefore, the following recommendations were brought to the table:

The Office should create a list indicating all possible International Fora NCs can send their

delegations to, to be circulated between NCs, at the same time also providing information on each

Forum’s size for the NCs to be aware of the delegation sizes they can send;

The NCs organising Fora are expected to inform both the Office and National Committees in advance

about the possibilities of delegations to be accommodated;

The Office is strongly encouraged to get involved in organising additional Fora or provide its

support (potentially financial) towards organising an additional Forum that can allocate extra


https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B_47KD1LLtm3Z0V1MlRlZFBEVGM&usp=sharing





13/13

delegations to assure a sufficient amount of places being offered for National Committees to send

delegates previously selected for Kiev IS.

The BNC also discussed the need to offer selected delegates an IS experience and thus recommended:

To prioritise these delegates selected to participate in a Forum instead of the Kiev IS in the

registration for Tampere IS and offer them 2/3 of places at the Summer International Session and

only 1/3 to delegates that already had an IS experience;

For EYP Finland to offer teachers’ places for the NCs that still would wish to send Chaperones to

Tampere.

This discussion will possibly be continued online after the meeting.

12. FINAL REMARKS

i. Having been presented with three alternatives, the BNC voted to hold its next meeting in Berlin on

November 21st–23rd, 2014;

ii. The BNC Coordinators summarised the meeting and were happy to point out how productive the

BNC had been and the positive, constructive attitude of the participants;

iii. On a general note, the BNC successfully tested several practical innovations, such as placards similar

to those used at the General Assemblies of EYP sessions, voting cards and a fixed seating

arrangement, all of which improved the meeting and, therefore, are highly suggested to be used at

future meetings.


Documents

S 2014 BNC MEETING - European Youth Parliament...Europe ï project, improving access to academic journals for conducting research when preparing for sessions and unconventional topics;