This is the translation of Les résolutions: explication de textes posted yesterday. Les résolutions: explication de textes
Many things have been said and written relative to the resolutions written by two LFI Action members and signed by over 60 parents. Acknowledging the questioning of some, and even the blaming of others who accuse us of being mean-minded, we believe it is important to remind all of us of the following facts:
These resolutions were put forward on April 11, when the Board had already publicly announced that they would call all members to vote on May 23rd General Assembly (GA) about a potential change of relationship with AEFE. These resolutions fall within a legal framework (NCO 622 Art 615) which aims at guaranteeing the rights of every member of the Association. They were meant to guarantee a real debate before the vote. [le board tardait à publier les informations promises durant les reunions d’information de BPR, JL et CW fin mars. Se reporter aux nombreux compte-rendus publiés par les parents représentants. « 12 Avril 2019: Le CA délivre 14 documents en Anglais (dont 11 disponibles en Français). La formulation exacte de la question du vote qui sera soumise à l’AG le 23 mai et les modalités de vote n’ont pas été précisés contrairement aux assurances données lors des reunions d’information. Il est probable que cette information sera envoyée avec les documents officiels pour l’AG. » (page Chronologie des événements) ](Update to be translated)
The Board did at first try to avoid the related discussion and the voting of these resolutions in the GA’s agenda, and they did engage legal fees to do so. Having had to accept them in April 27, the Board then modified the schedule and implemented the “binding consultation, which does not fall within a legal framework” (please refer to the Board exceptional meeting on April 27, its communication on April 29 and further details given by the Board on May 7). This change in schedule is an attempt to diminish the impact of these resolutions, and to make them look like anti-democratic, which is absolutely not the case. This maneuver also allows the Board to impede a debate within the General Assembly, hence harming the rights of the members of the Association (*).
Let’s now review the content of these resolutions. What do they basically say? First, they say that the method followed by the Board is not the right one and that it puts the stability of the Association at risk. The current violence of debates is the perfect example. They also say that to guarantee a controlled change, we need to start by:
(1) Define LFI’s strategic project with the entire community, which is the only way to remain united before embarking in such a change.
(2) Work on the reform of the governance of the Association and LFI’s bodies. Indeed, we must implement safeguards in order to ensure everybody’s opinion will be respected. We also must improve the functioning of LFI’s bodies in order to guarantee that we will continue to respect the homologation rules (French homologation).
(3) A change in relationship with AEFE should only happen once these 2 steps are completed.
This is not about countering the decision made by the majority but about ensuring that everything will be done in the right order to preserve our community’s cohesiveness. This is actually the reason why these two resolutions have been put forward. Their objective is to allow this work to be done, regardless of the choice made by the majority, while respecting the minority’s opinion: We will continue to study the partnership in case of a convention vote, and we will put in place the safeguards to reassure the pro-convention parents in case of a move towards the partnership. Please do read the resolutions and the 1000 words whose diffusion is being delayed by the Board, and you will see that these resolutions are, well on the contrary, absolutely democratic.
Finally, we believe it is important to remind that the LFI Action group was born spontaneously two months ago, regrouping parents who did not know each other but wanted to fully understand the Board of Director’s project, wanted to get informed and to inform other parents. Understandably, we ended up demanding that everyone could feel part of the decision in a legal manner and having hold a one-on-one adversarial debate. However much we all have different sensitivities within the group, all of us ended up very naturally united behind a same set of core values: democracy, pluralism, integrity and intellectual honesty.
And we have paid great attention, perhaps disproportionally, to understanding LFI’s situation, the challenges of our relationship with AEFE, the Board’s project, the impact of the change initiated by the Board … and we have tried to share that information within our very limited means. To be precise, we have spent a total of 1350 HKD to create our website and to organize the meeting at the school on May 2. We let you compare with the means engaged by the Board, to support their unilateral communication.
We have always aimed at obtaining a one-on-one debate that we hoped would be a democratic one, allowing each party to express itself in a fair manner, and we have always asked for the decision to be left to a majority of votes during a verbal assembly, such as a General Assembly. Let’s remind ourselves of the importance of “isegorie” (equality of speech), one of the founding principles of democracy. In view of the communications made by the Board over the last months, can anybody reasonably believe that this principle has been respected?
It is time to advocate for a change in methods and for the respect of the rights of each and every member of the Association: do come participate in the General Assembly on May 23 and get involved in the debates, and do vote for the candidates and resolutions that you believe are most suitable to ensure LFIs progress.
LFI Action candidates & the entire LFI Action group
* Just another proof of the credit given to the rights of the members of the Association : we have asked the Board to circulate to all of the members of the Association a text of maximum 1000 words explaining the objective of each resolution, in line with article 580 of NC) Cap 622. There hasn’t been any diffusion up until now, and we are still waiting for an answer from the Board relative to this legitimate request.