e-laws EASM m member su urvey rega arding th e charter rs and - PDF document

e-laws EASM m member su urvey rega arding th e charter rs and by Present tation o of the re esults General in nformation : � Al l 442 curre nt EASM me embers wer re individua ally invited o on 20 th Jan 2 2018 to pa rticipate in the e anonymou us online su rvey. � In order to ma ake sure on ly members can partici pate individ dual links we ere created and ind dividually se ent to the m embers. The e link could not be used d a second time. � Fo or two mem mbers a sec cond indivi idual link w was created d and the r results from m the first lin nk deleted (total samp ple 444). � Al ll members s who did n not particip pated in the e survey be efore 4 th Fe eb 2018 w were finally re minded via a email. � Th he survey w was closed on Saturda ay 10 th Feb b 2018, so ome days la ater than a announced be ecause som me member rs asked fo or an extens sion. � 17 77 membe rs (40%) st tarted the s survey and 114 (25.8 8%) comple eted the su urvey. � Th he online su urvey was conducted via the so oftware pro vider “unip park”. Note: All data f from the m embership p survey ar re available e and acc essible for r interested d people to o make the process as s transpare ent as poss ible. In ord der to ensu ure that all ideas and d comments s are consid dered for t the change es of the ch harters and d bye-laws s, the resul lts were co onsolidated d for Paul Jo ohnson, an n external p person with h legal exp pertise. Ba sed consol lidated res ults, which h are presen nt below h he will prov vide recom mmendation ns how the charters a and bye-law ws have to o be change ed and how w the respe ective para agraphs sh ould be ex xpressed. Next steps s: � 15 Feb 2018 8: Presentin ng the resul lts within E ASM’s Exe ecutive Com mmittee � 28 Feb 2018 8: Sending the consol idated resu ults to Paul Johnson � 31 Mar 201 8: Expecte ed recomm mendation for the ch hanges from m Paul Joh hnson and d sha are them w within the bo oard � 23 & 24 201 8: Discuss sion of the draft within n the Execu utive Comm mittee boar rd meeting Page 1/24

� Bef fore 31 Ma ay 2018: P Presenting the final dr raft to the m members Diversity y of Boar rd membe ers At presen t, we have e a solely nationality y-based de efinition of diversity i in the char rter. Yet, it t might mak ke sense to o think muc ch broader here. Please sel lect from th his list up to three ca ategories t that you de eem most important for finding g new board rd members s: Rank C riteria Mo odus Me ean Frequ uency Fre equency F Frequency Sample TD) (ST Top 1 (%) To op 2 (%) T Top 3 (%) 1 Ex xperience 1 1.6 64 45 4 32 13 n=90 24) .0%) 35.6%) (14.4%) (.72 (50 (3 2 Co ompetencie es 1 1.7 70 45 4 41 15 n=101 15) .6%) 40.6%) (14.8%) (.71 (44 (4 3 Ag ge 2 2.0 09 4 4 12 6 n=22 684) .2%) 54.5%) (27.3%) (.06 (18 (5 4 Gender G 3 2.1 11 1 3 8 17 n=38 94) .2%) 21.1%) (44.7%) (.89 (34 (2 5 N ationality 3 2.3 34 8 8 17 25 n=50 45) .0%) 34.0%) (50.0%) (.74 (16 (3 6 Ke ey Position (e. 3 2.6 68 3 3 6 28 n=37 26) 1%) 16.2%) (75.7%) g. ., ESMQ ed ditor (.62 (8. (1 or r Incoming / Pa ast Confere ence C hair) Page 2/24

Electing members s of the E Executive e Board How do y you see the e procedure e for electi ing membe ers of the e executive b board? Sho ould EASM M have a no omination c committee, should the ere be nom minations fr rom the me embership base only, , or would y you prefer a mixture of both? Please let us know h ere: 19 19% Pro nomin nation com mittee 21 1 61 21% % 60% 6 Contra no omination c committe Mixture o of both Figure 1: O Overview of f the membe er’s attitude in terms of the nomina tion commit ttee (n=101 ) Provided a arguments for a nomi ination com mmittee � No ominations by membe ership to the e nominati on commit ttee. � I w would appre eciate a no omination c committee � Tra ansparancy y is impor rtant and I believe a nomina ation com mittee can n play an n imp portant role e in establi shing trans sparancy. � nom mination co ommittee � It is s important t that EASM M establish hes a Nom ination Co ommittee w with well-de fined remit t and d procedur res. � No omination c committee which rec ceives reco ommendatio ons from E EASM mem mbers and d par rtners. � EA SM nomina ation comm mittee � The e best way for the pro ocedere is to have a nomination n committe ee. � No omination c comittee � No omination c committee s should be n nice Page 3/24

� The e nominati on commi ttee itself i is value a ble as it s should “ch heck” the c candidates s qua alifications . The com mmittee itse elf should not make own sugg gestions. S uggestions s sho ould come from mem bers (indiv viduals) to m make sure, , everybod dy is able to o come up p wit th suggestio ons. The co ommittee s hould wor k with a pr re agreed check list t to evaluate e the eses sugge stions and d show the eir evaluat tion for al l suggestio ons prior t to the GA A onl line. � By having a nominatio n committe ee we ena able a stra tegic appr roach to b e taken to o boa ard memb ber recruit tment and d successi on planni ng. If it is solely from the e me embership b basis there e is the pos ssibility tha t what we have is rat ther ad ho c. It would d ma ake sense fo or prospec ctive candid dates to ap pply to the Board wh o then aut horise and d (if necessary) short list the applica ants. Those e on the s hort list ca an then co mmunicate e wit th the mem bership an nd partake in the vote e at the AG GM as was the case i n Bern. � The ere should be a nomi ination com mmittee wh hich should propose c candidates s after their r eva aluation of f the sugge ested cand didates don ne by the members. I do not think there e sho ould be nom minations o of people n not membe ers of EASM M � I be elieve that EASM sho ould have a a nominatio on committ tee. � the ere should b be nomina tions from the membe ership base e only � A nomination n committe e can be v very helpfu ul in the w way to ide entify and approach h app propiate ca andidates f for becomi ing an EAS SM board member. � Giv ven that th here are cr riteria to b be fulfilled by nomine ees to be possibly e lected, the e goa al of the n omination committee e must be t to control f for these c riteria. Ho wever, the e nom mination c ommittee s shall not g give any a dvices but only secu ure that all nominees s me eet the crite eria and p present the e respectiv ve informa tion for ev very nomin nee that is s acc cepted in a a neutral fo orm. � The e procedur re with a n nomination committee e would be e better sin nce the me embers are e ind dividual pe ersons onl y (associa ation). If t the forma t of the o organisatio on was a a fed deration, w with associa ations as m members th hen the nom minations f from the m membership p bas se would b be more su itable. � It s hould have e an indep pendent No omination C Committee who recei ives sugge estions also o fro m the mem mbers. The e nominatio on Commit ttee is also o allowed to nomina te persons s the emselves. Provided a arguments against a nomination n committe ee � No omination c committee n never work ked well. Page 4/24