Facebook Group – FIS HK Parents, Teachers and Alumni

En attendant les résultats détaillés des votes de l’AG(*), ci-joint un message du groupe FaceBook: FIS HK Parents, Teachers and Alumni.

Message:
Ce groupe est dédié à la communication entre parents, professeurs et anciens du LFI Hong Kong. Promouvant la diversité de perspective et sans parti pris, cet espace est le votre pour exprimer vos opinions, partager des conseils, faire la promotion d’événements du LFI ou échanger des informations pédagogiques.

Ce lien vous permettra d’y accéder: https://m.facebook.com/groups/184808275770325

Good afternoon,
This group is whole community of the French international school of HK.
If you wish to join, here is the link.
https://m.facebook.com/groups/184808275770325
Thank you

(*) Plus précisément, pour chaque résolution, y compris celles de la page du recto concernant les candidats au CA et  les budgets, nous attendons les statistiques suivantes:

  • Nombre de voix exprimées
  • Nombre de voix validées
  • Nombre de voix “FOR”
  • Nombre de voix “AGAINST”
  • Nombre de voix “ABSTAIN”.

Questions to the members of the board – AGM – 23 May

Find below our questions sent to the members of the board at the AGM on 23 May.

  • Question 1

As per company ordinance, any shareholder attending a General Meeting can seek information pertinent to the subject matter of the resolution before the resolution is put to a vote, to enable him to decide how to vote. Shouldn’t the debate on the present topics be done with the questions from the audience before nominating any new Director or voting budget?

  • Question 2

You have taken a commitment of 7 Million of consulting with Turenne consulting. Is it a binding commitment imposed to the next Board members?

Was Turenne selected under a proper FIS procurement process? and follows HK laws? Was Turenne compared to other competitors? And has some experience working for our size of school?

Don’t you think that these kind of mistake does not show how you are going to manage such big project without external costly consultants while you were complaining about AEFE costs?

  • Question 3

Are Board members or ex-Board members going to be in the transition team or in the administration positions to be freed by AEFE staff as of Sept 2020?

How do we have the guarantee there is no conflict of interest while you have employed some parents and their company in preparing the consultation and campaign?

  • Question 4

The Board has spent more than 600,000 HKD of FIS money to hire consultants while it was not in the budget, so the FIS staff had to make savings on the school expenses. If the Board has full power to decide to spend our money, without following EDB guidelines (Up to 50K without written quote), I am asking the Board why they gave us underestimated cost of the Webinar (64K in Q&A Webinar 1) while the real figures are 171K?

  • Question 5

In your presentation pack to parents, there is no 5-years budget while it is requested by the by-laws? The only budget provided is the one for 2019-2020 when the FIS is still under convention with AEFE. There is no budget for the 1st year of partnership (2020-2021) and beyond where we can see evolution of school fees in 1st year of partnership and in normal budget run. Why we cannot have a visibility of how the school fees will evolve for both streams?

  • Question 6

What is your method qualifying that transition is at iso-cost since your educational costs increase by 6.4% and your pedagogical costs increase by 4%. We saw the Turenne support fees, but did not see the other transition fees (recruitment fees, higher salary…), can you let us know where you put these costs in the budget?

  • Question 7

You said that the transition fees will not impact the school fees but will be taken on the FIS capital & debentures. What is the current reserve ratio of the FIS? What will be your policy to recover the FIS capital? and for future debentures and how it is going to impact us?

  • Question 8

In your meeting with PR on 19 January 2019, you mentioned that you have identified someone to be a temporary headmaster during the transition and mentioned afterwards the example of Mr. Gabet headmaster of CFBL who worked with Turenne in the transition to partnership for CFBL. This same person came to HK with some travel cost of 61K, met some people from the school administration, but we do not know the reason of his venue. Can you tell us the content of his letter of engagement, the findings of his mission report and provide us explanation on the level of expenses for him?  

  • Question 9

What do you answer to parents who get to know that about 35 teachers and 8 staff administration of the school may leave while under partnership? It would be the highest level of departure in history of FIS while we are paying resident teachers cheaper than local teachers, so how are you going to manage such level of recruitments?

Since most of the resident teachers at in the exam class, don’t you think this will create unexpected and unnecessary turbulences for the children’s passing exam?

  • Question 10

What are the control mechanisms & code of conduct you have to put in place in order to avoid situation where the Board can denigrate a group of parents publicly with FIS means and a Board director send a message only to International Stream to ask them to choose his preferred solution?

  • Question 11

The KPMG audit of 2017 (page 4), stated that a main risk for the FIS is the change of relationship with the AEFE. Why this has been removed from 2018 one? Did the conditions changed between 2017 and 2018?

  • Question 12

You did not follow the By-laws and interviewed the candidates to Board’s vacant position in order to do a proper due diligence? And modified the list of candidates to Director and PR after the deadline of 17 May 2019? How come you do not know these rules as Board members?

  • Question 13

The Board and its bureau are not following the By-Laws regarding its composition. How come you have not noticed that you have been in breach of the law?

  • Question 14

I understand that the staff under the authority of the Board has a much higher resignation / turnover rate (70 departures for past 18 months) than the AEFE staff’s one. If we put the entire staff under the Board’s authority, won’t we have a higher risk of turnover?

  • Question 15

Within the current board, we have 3 people have close working relationship to LVMH

  • Nicolas Morineaux being the CFO and COO servicing Clement Brunet Moret who is leading the Rimowa brand in Asia
  • And, Goran Kuna, husband of the Regional head of HR at LVMH

I am wondering whether they have declared this conflict of interest (and to which independent authority)?

Hearing that LVMH decided to execute the votes (63 corporate debentures) attached to the corporate debentures of their employees, is this correct? If yes, did the Regional Head of HR of LVMH (spouse of Mr Goran Kuna) play any role in this vote?

Which procedures did you implement to ensure proper conflict of interest management? and how this is managed during the General Meeting’s vote?

Are we having the same issue with actual candidates?

  • Question 16

Some parents asked for details of the vote by streams, by primary/secondary level but did not get any answer. Who decided that this information is confidential? and Why?

  • Question 17

For candidates, how long have you been in HK and are you staying for the duration of your Board application?

  • Question 18

Did you stop the work in the building at the entrance of BPR deemed to welcome Administrative staff on Easter? Are you still doing additional renovation and for which purpose?

Best regards,

Clotilde Chum, Alexandre Dufresne de Saint Leon, Samuel Faveur , Frédéric Lainé & Emmanuel Marchand

Enquête: 35% d’élèves français seraient scolarisés au LFI. En fait 65% des primaires et secondaires le sont.


Nous entendons que le lycée français a un problème d’attractivité, que 35% seulement des enfants français y sont scolarisés, que le LFI n’est pas suffisamment compétitif.
La réponse: changeons de statut, optons pour le partenariat.

Regardons les chiffres.

Année 2017-2018:


Nombres d’élèves français au LFI

Section Française Section Internationale
1.827168

dont environ 270 en maternelle (MS et GS).

Source: AEFE, LFI website

Prenons les chiffres des inscrits au consulat en Décembre 2017:

Source: Rapport d’activité consulaire 2017

Inscrit au consulat par classe d’âge en 2017

Total 0-6 ans7-17 ans
13.7781.737 (12,61%)2.663 (19,33%)

Nous pouvons donc calculer le taux de scolarisation par classe d’âge:

Taux de scolarisation au LFI par classe d’âge

0-6 ans7-17 ans
15,54% (270/1737) 64,77% (1827+168-270)/2663

Donc si la stratégie est d’attirer et fidéliser les jeunes enfants non scolarisés au lycée français, il faut avoir un plan clairement défini sur la maternelle et les crèches et surtout comprendre les décisions des parents.  Un chiffre sans analyse laisse le champ à des interprétations erronées et ne permet pas de mettre en évidence des solutions pertinentes.

Au delà de la maternelle, le pourcentage d’élèves français scolarisés au LFI pour le primaire et le secondaire est plus proche de 65% que de 35%.

Les raisons possibles:

  • Les français sur liste d’attente qui ne peuvent patienter.
  • Les binationaux qui ne choisissent pas le curriculum français.
  • Le coûts du LFI et les parents qui ne peuvent payer les frais et qui ne peuvent ou ne veulent pas obtenir de bourse.
  • Le choix volontaire d’un cursus international qui correspond mieux à certains enfants.
  • Les déçus du LFI (Le sondage Ipsos montre cependant un niveau de satisfaction correct des parents du LFI)
  • Le choix d’un campus de proximité (SI à Blue Pool plutôt que SF à TKO)

Malheureusement, en l’absence d’une stratégie partagée, les chiffres sans analyse suffisante alimentent les peurs et les opinions. Les classes de PS ont été fermées sur décision du CA en 2014, il y avait sans doute une bonne raison à l’époque.

Quelque soit le statut du LFI auprès de l’AEFE, l’évolution de l’environnement et des choix des parents nous obligent  à élaborer une nouvelle stratégie à moyen terme, à ce jour mal définie voire inexistante. Cette démarche doit reposer sur une analyse factuelle, une vision partagée et consensuelle et, des institutions stables qui permettent de construire le LFI sur des bases solides.  

L’équipe LFI action

Nota bene: Cette analyse a été réalisée de bonne foi avec les données dont nous disposons. Nous avons cité nos sources pour vérification. Nous sommes preneurs de tous chiffres, données et éléments qui pourraient nous aider à améliorer cette analyse open-source.


The 2 resolutions to be voted in General Assembly: an explanation

This is the translation of Les résolutions: explication de textes posted yesterday. Les résolutions: explication de textes

Dear all,

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

https://lfiaction.com/2019/05/17/resolution-7/ https://lfiaction.com/2019/05/17/resolution-8/

* 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.

Les résolutions: explication de textes

Bonjour à tous,

Beaucoup de choses ont été dites et écrites au sujet des résolutions portées par deux membres de LFI Action et signées par plus de 60 parents. Devant les interrogations de certains, et parfois meme les reproches d’autres qui nous accusent de mauvaises intentions, il nous semble important de rappeler les faits suivants:

Ces résolutions ont été déposées le 11 Avril, alors que le Board avait déjà publiquement annoncé qu’ils soumettraient la décision de changement de relation avec l’AEFE en AG le 23 Mai. Elles s’inscrivent dans un cadre légal (NCO 622 Art 615), visant à garantir les droits des membres de l’Association. Elles permettaient de garantir un débat avant le vote car 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 précisées 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)

Le Board a tout d’abord cherché à empêcher l’inscription de la discussion et du vote de ces résolutions à l’agenda de l’AG et a engagé des frais juridiques en ce sens. Lorsqu’il a dû s’y résoudre le 27 Avril, il a alors modifié le calendrier et mis en place la « consultation contraignante, qui ne s’inscrit pas dans un cadre légal » (cf. réunion exceptionnelle du board le 27 avril, communication le 29 Avril et précisions apportées par le board le 7 Mai). Ce changement de calendrier permet avant tout de diminuer la portée des résolutions et de les faire apparaître comme anti-démocratiques, ce qu’elles ne sont pas. Cette manœuvre permet également d’empêcher un débat au sein de l’Assemblée Générale et ainsi de réduire le droit des membres de l’Association (*)

Venons-en maintenant au contenu de ces résolutions. Que disent-elles en substance ? Elles disent avant tout que la méthode adoptée par le Board sur ce sujet n’est pas la bonne et qu’elle met en danger la stabilité de l’association. La violence des débats aujourd’hui en est la parfaite illustration. Elles disent également que pour garantir un changement maîtrisé nous devrions commencer par :

(1)       Définir le projet stratégique du LFI avec l’ensemble de la communauté, seule manière de nous unir avant de se lancer dans un tel changement.

(2)       Travailler à la réforme de la gouvernance de l’Association et des instances du LFI. Il nous faut en effet mettre des garde-fous en place afin de s’assurer que l’opinion de tous sera respectée. Nous devons également améliorer le fonctionnement des instances du LFI afin de s’assurer que nous continuerons de respecter les règles de l’homologation.

(3)       Un changement de relation avec l’AEFE ne devrait intervenir qu’une fois ces deux étapes franchies.

Il ne s’agit pas de contrer la décision de la majorité mais de s’assurer que les choses seront faites dans l’ordre afin de préserver la cohésion de notre communauté. C’est d’ailleurs la raison pour laquelle deux résolutions ont été déposées. L’objectif est de permettre que ce travail se fasse quel que soit le choix de la majorité, tout en respectant l’opinion de la minorité : Nous continuerions à étudier le partenariat en cas de vote convention et nous mettons en place des gardes fous pour rassurer les parents pro convention en cas de passage au partenariat. Lisez les résolutions et les 1000 mots que le board tarde à diffuser, vous verrez que ces résolutions sont au contraire hautement démocratiques.

Enfin, il nous semble important de rappeler que le groupe LFI Action est né spontanément il y a maintenant deux mois en regroupant des parents qui ne se connaissaient pas mais souhaitaient comprendre le projet du Conseil d’Administration, s’informer et informer les autres parents. Nous en sommes venus naturellement à demander à ce que tous soient associés à la décision de manière légale et suite à un débat contradictoire. Même si nous avons tous des sensibilités différentes au sein du groupe, nous nous sommes tous rejoints très naturellement sur des valeurs fortes de démocratie, pluralisme, intégrité et honnêteté intellectuelle.

Et nous nous sommes investis, de manière démesurée sans doute, pour comprendre la situation du LFI, les difficultés dans la relation avec l’AEFE, les projets du Conseil d’Administration, l’impact du changement qu’il a initié… nous avons cherché à diffuser ces informations avec nos moyens. Pour être tout à fait précis, nous avons dépensé en tout et pour tout 1350 HK dollars pour le site et la réunion du 2 mai. Nous vous laissons comparer avec les moyens engagés par le board pour une communication à sens unique.

Nous avons toujours cherché à obtenir un débat que nous espérions démocratique, laissant toutes les parties s’exprimer de manière équitable et souhaitant que la décision revienne à la majorité à l’issue d’une Assemblée de paroles telle que l’AG. Rappelons l’importance de « l’iségorie » (égalité de parole) parmi les principes fondateurs de la démocratie. Au regard des communications faites par le Board au cours des derniers mois, peut-on raisonnablement estimer que ce principe a été respecté ?

Il est encore temps d’œuvrer pour un changement de méthode et un respect des droits de tous les membres de l’association : venez participer à l’Assemblée Générale le 23 Mai, écoutez et prenez part aux débats, votez pour les candidats et les résolutions qui vous semblent les mieux à même d’assurer le développement du LFI.


Les candidats LFI action & l’équipe LFI action

https://lfiaction.com/2019/05/17/resolution-7/
https://lfiaction.com/2019/05/17/resolution-8/

*Autre illustration de l’intérêt porté aux droits des membres de l’Association : nous avons demandé au Board de faire circuler à l’ensemble des membres de l’association un texte de 1000 mots maximum expliquant l’objectif de chaque résolution conformément à l’article 580 du NCO Cap 622. Aucune diffusion n’a été faite jusqu’à présent et nous continuons d’attendre une réponse à notre demande de diffusion.

Resolution #8

Ci-joint le texte de la resolution déposée le 24 avril.

RESOLUTION REQUEST FOR THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MAY 23rd 2019 submitted on 24 April 2019

The signatories are asking by resolution the signature of the convention with AEFE (version 29 march 2019), which can be denounced with 1 year notice (Art. 22); without impediment to the board of Directors’ work on governance, the FIS Articles of Association and by-laws and the pedagogical project.

DEMANDE DE RESOLUTION POUR L’ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DU 23 MAI 2019 requise le 24 avril 2019

Les signataires demandent par résolution la signature de la convention négociée avec l’AEFE (en date du 29 Mars 2019), convention qui peut être dénoncée à tout moment avec un an de préavis (Art. 22); cela sans restreindre  le Conseil d’Administration dans ses études sur les évolutions de la gouvernance, des statuts du LFI à Hong Kong et l’élaboration du projet pédagogique.

Art 580 Statement related to Resolution # 8 to be circulated to the association members ahead of the AGM om 23 mai 2019

The status change to partnership is going to profoundly impact the FIS’ mode of operation for the years to come.

  1. Aim of the resolution

On April 11th, 2019, when this resolution was sent to the Board, parents from the French Stream had not received much information about the decision which was, at that time, to be voted during the Annual Ordinary General Meeting of May 23th.

It’s important to remind that :

  • in January 2019, the Board was about to decide, alone, to change FIS’ relationship with AEFE from convention to partnership without submitting its decision to parents’ approval.
  • In March, as the Board’s decision was impending, a petition with 600 parents’ signature required that the decision be voted by parents and that both options (New Convention with AEFE and partnership) be presented in unbiased and objective ways, as well as discussed during an open debate with all actors involved in the change (parents, teachers, AEFE, Board).
  • The Board finally decided to vote a simple recommendation on partnership and to submit the final decision to parents during the next Annual Ordinary General Meeting, which is the process usually followed by FIS for such important decisions as it allows an open discussion in front of all members of FIS (parents as well as corporate debentures holders) and a vote.
  • Since January, parents had sent numerous letters with many enquiries about the impacts of the change to partnership. These questions remain even today with partial or no answer.
  • The communication by the Board, named “consultations” were limited to unilateral presentations which could not be contradicted.
  • On April 12th, parents from the French Stream finally received the information pack from the Board. As a matter of fact, many issues were not addressed or partially addressed in these documents.
  • Through his entire communication, the Board stated that the reporting line of the International Stream in the New Convention was a concern for the unity of the school, when he was the one to request that the Head of the International Stream reports to “the managing body or its representative”.

Thus, on April 11th, parents were worried about not getting objective, transparent nor partial information before May 23rd. They felt they would not be able to ask relevant questions for discussion during the Annual General Meeting, and that finally, they would not be in a position to take a decision in full knowledge of the facts, stakes and consequences of their vote.

Unfortunately, despite all the communication provided by the Board, parents still consider that they have not been able to express their opinion, to sincerely discuss the two potential options before the electronic vote named “binding consultation” finally imposed on them, given the fact that this “binding consultation” has absolutely no legal grounds compared to resolutions passed during an Annual General Meeting.  

Moreover, crucial elements such as the strategic vision for the school still lacks. Partnership, as proposed by the Board in its documents, threatens balance of roles and responsibilities between all FIS’ actors and cancels educational counter-powers which were guaranteed by the New Convention with AEFE.  Risks of micro management as well as interference with the pedagogical atmosphere do exist. Finally, agreeing and voting the new Articles of Association which need to be adapted and then submitted to the EDB and local authorities for approval will take approximately 2 years.

Analysis of documents provided by the Board up to day shows that the transition to partnership exposes FIS to significant risks for uncertain benefits while the New Convention offers a better answer to challenges awaiting FIS.

As a result, the aim of resolution #8 is now for parents and corporate debentures holders to vote the New Convention, which can be denounced with a 1 year-notice without impediment to the Board directors’ work on governance, FIS’ Articles of Association and by-laws and the strategic plan.

2. Qualification of the resolution and majority required

This resolution was first sent to the Board on April 11th, 2019. After having questioned its admissibility, the Board finally acknowledged receipt of it on April 24th,.2019..

This resolution was to be discussed and voted during the Annual Ordinary General Meeting of May 23th, at the same time as the resolution regarding the possible change to partnership.  It’s aim was indeed to secure and guarantee the process to moving to partnership with AEFE in case parents would opt for that option during the meeting. Its legal qualification was thus “ordinary resolution” for which a simple majority of votes is needed to be passed.

On April 29th, the Board decided that the vote on the relationship with AEFE would finally not be implemented during the Annual Ordinary General Meeting -unlike they previously informed all parents- but on a three day-period (May 13th to May 15th) with an electronic vote. As this electronic vote named “binding consultation” has absolutely no legal basis, the Board declared it would ratify the result of the electronic vote by a Board decision on May 16th.

Provision 4 of FIS’ Articles of Association provides that : “ The members may, by a special resolution, direct Directors to take, or refrain from taking, specified action”.

As soon as the possible change to partnership became a Board’s decision prior to the  Annual Ordinary General Meeting – instead of a resolution passed during this meeting- resolution #8 has been reclassified by the Board as a special resolution for which a 75% majority is required to be passed.

We officially contest, by this statement, the reclassification of resolution #8 and require it to be passed as an ordinary resolution with a simple majority of votes.

Resolution #7

Ci-joint le texte de la resolution déposée le 24 avril.

RESOLUTION REQUEST FOR THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MAY 23rd 2019

Hong Kong, April 24th, 2019

Considering that

  • the current FIS school’s governance needs to be reviewed in light of the status change to partnership in order to maintain the balance and power and reinforce the skills of the Board,
  • the outcome of the parents’ vote validating the Board’s recommendation to revoke the convention  and move to a partnership will profoundly impact the FIS’s operations for the years to come,
  • the parents are entitled to validate the engagement letter of the future pedagogic team and their intended vision for the school,

we request, for the smooth operation of the FIS, in case of a positive vote for the Board’s recommendation to transition to partnership the following resolution:

A postponement of the termination of the current convention agreement coupled with an extension of the transition period  until the governance reform, the pedagogic plan and the engagement letter of the future team in charge of the transition to the partnership status  are approved by the members by vote in an Extraordinary General Assembly, within a period of 6 months after their disclosure. In the absence of validation by the members, the transition to partnership will be terminated.

Art 580 Statement related to Resolution # 7 to be circulated to the members before the AG on 23 mai 2019

The status change to partnership is going to profoundly impact the FIS’ mode of operation for the years to come.

  1. Governance must be reviewed before terminating the convention currently in force with AEFE

Whereas the New Convention negotiated with AEFE clarified the roles and responsibilities of each FIS’ actor, the Partnership agreement threatens the balance between them.

The Board is going to be in full power upon the school strategic vision, financial and human resources management -including choosing the Headmaster for the French Stream- and operational issues. The transition to partnership is going to cancel educational counter-powers which were guaranteed by the New Convention with AEFE, and thus to increase the risk of micro-management as well as interference with the pedagogical sphere.

However, no safeguards have yet been planned in the road map to partnership.

The ones in the current FIS Articles of Association are insufficient and need to be  reinforced as even stated by the Board itself. Defining the right governance, agreeing and voting the new Articles of Association and making them approved by the EDB and local authorities will take approximately 2 years.

We also notice that a code of conduct must be put in place in order to remind the roles and responsibilities of each party.  

As a consequence, the governance of the school must be reviewed before that convention currently in force be terminated.

2. Definition of the school’s vision (strategic plan)

The school’s vision is crucial for, among others :

  • reinforcing FIS’ skills in a competitive environment, in the short and long terms
  • defining the school mission as a whole while taking into consideration the diversity of pupils and students
  • defining  the new Headmaster’s profile and mission
  • aligning with the pedagogical plan taking into consideration accreditations constraints

The strategic plan which materializes the school vision is currently inexistent. It needs to be defined and validated by the parents and pedagogical teams before any change in FIS relationships with AEFE.

3. Engagement letter of the Board

To guarantee the transition to partnership with transparency, trust, and support from all actors of FIS, the Board members’ commitments must be clearly defined, approved by parents and fulfilled. Board members must be accountable to parents on commitments made, on decisions taken and measures implemented.

We consider that these 3 steps have to be fulfilled prior to any termination of the convention currently in force in order to succeed in FIS transition to partnership with AEFE.

As a consequence, we require that the termination of the current convention agreement be postponed and coupled with an extension of the transition period until the governance reform, the strategic plan and the engagement letter of the future team in charge of the transition to the partnership status are approved by the members by vote in an Extraordinary General Assembly, within a period of 6 months after their disclosure.

In case validation by the members of these three fundamental steps fails, the transition to partnership will be terminated.

4. Qualification of the resolution and majority required

This resolution was first sent to the Board on April 11th, 2019. After having questioned its admissibility, the Board finally acknowledged receipt of it on April 24th,.2019.

This resolution was to be discussed and voted during the Annual Ordinary General Meeting of May 23th, at the same time as the resolution regarding the possible change to partnership.  It’s aim was indeed to secure and guarantee the process to moving to partnership with AEFE in case parents would opt for that option during the meeting. Its legal qualification was thus “ordinary resolution” for which a simple majority of votes is needed to be passed.

On April 29th, the Board decided that the vote on the relationship with AEFE would finally not be implemented during the Annual Ordinary General Meeting -unlike they previously informed all parents- but on a three day-period (May 13th to May 15th) with an electronic vote. As this electronic vote named “binding consultation” has absolutely no legal basis, the Board declared it would ratify the result of the electronic vote by a Board decision on May 16th.

Provision 4 of FIS’ Articles of Association provides that : “ The members may, by a special resolution, direct Directors to take, or refrain from taking, specified action”.

As soon as the possible change to partnership became a Board’s decision prior to the  Annual Ordinary General Meeting -instead of a resolution passed during this meeting- resolution #7 has been reclassified by the Board as a special resolution for which a 75% majority is required to be passed.

We officially contest, by this statement, the reclassification of resolution #7 and require it to be passed as an ordinary resolution with a simple majority of votes.

Resultats de la consultation

Chers parents, chers détenteurs de débenture,
Dear parents, dear debenture holders, 

Vous trouverez ci-dessous les résultats de la consultation électronique contraignante sur le mode d’association avec l’AEFE. 
You will find below the results of the binding online consultation on the mode of collaboration with AEFE.

Le taux de participation à cette consultation s’élève à 55,7 %.
The participation rate to this consultation reached 55,7 %. Nouvelle convention / New convention : 41,7 % Partenariat / Partnership : 58,3 %
Comme précédemment indiqué, la procédure associée à cette consultation a fait l’objet d’une certification par un cabinet d’avocats.
As previously announced, the process associated with the online consultation has been certified by a law firm. 

Nous accusons reception des chiffres communiqués par le Board. Par soucis de transparence, pouvez-vous communiquer
1) le split FI/FF
2) le split corporate/private
3) le périmètre d’audit de l’avocat sur la validation.

Nouveaux documents – candidature au conseil d’Administration

Deux documents ont été ajoutés hier:


Communication du Lycée:

Il est encore temps de postuler pour rejoindre le Conseil d’Administration. Vous pouvez déposer votre dossier de candidature jusqu’au 16 mai (18h30).

Selon les résultats de la consultation le 16 mai après-midi, vous pourrez toujours retirer votre candidature avant l’annonce officielle de la liste des candidats le 17 mai.

Vous pouvez également postuler pour devenir Parent Représentant.

L’école a besoin de vous !