Movement Wide Association (MWA)

In June 2009, the associative task force of the MSF international council (IC) submitted a proposal on the governance reform. Regarding how to stimulate the sense of international membership, they suggested the creation of an international website that would strengthen the links between the IC and MSF associative members.

The IC considered this proposal too general and not concrete enough. They recommended that an international council associative standing committee (ICASC) take over and be in charge of issues linked with the associative dimension of the MSF movement.

They also strongly suggested that this ICASC work together with the working group on the associative governance.

document

Associate Task Force Proposal to the MSF International Council, June 2009 (in English)

Extract:

3. Explore and present an idea of MSF international membership, its advantages and disadvantages to the MSF Movement

[…] the ATF proposes the creation of ‘MSF International website’ and recommends:

• Creating an international web-based platform utilising all feature of Web 2.0.

• Making it globally accessible for all members of MSF associations.

• That it provide relevant information from the IC for all members directly.

• That it give the opportunity to have direct communications with the IC through its associative standing committee.

• That oversight and promotion be assured by the Associative Standing Committee.

document

Minutes from the MSF International Council Meeting, 26 June 2009 (in English)

Extract:

Associative Task Force

International council vice-president (ICVP) Reinhard Doerflinger presented recommendations of the Associative Task Force. Below are the main outcomes of this discussion:

Re: General process:

The IC felt that the proposed recommendations of the Associative Task Force are too general, without concrete steps forward for the important issues at stake. In the document – important elements, such as rationale, basis and vision are missing. Several of the IC members highlighted their disappointment that no collaboration was done between the Associative Task Force and Governance Working Group (Governance WG). The work of the two international groups is so close and vital for the movement – one cannot advance without consideration another’s reflections. Therefore, the IC strongly suggested that the further work of the Associative Task Force (from here on will be referred as the IC Associative Standing committee) will continue its work in collaboration with Governance WG. The IC underlines the importance of addressing the associative governance today, in order for us to maintain a strong MSF movement tomorrow. Having more and more associative initiatives arising from different parts of the world (mission places, branch offices, other places) shows the great involvement of people to be involved in MSF social mission. Therefore, the importance today is to guide the new associative initiatives for the benefit of the whole movement. […]

Re: International website

The IC questioned the rationale behind the creation of an international associative website. The field and members of the association often express their disappointment on the lack of information. The problem lies with the executive information transmission, often blocked at the level of coordination teams in the field, as proved by the poor distribution at the field level of the already existing and valuable Associative Newsletter (which should be improved). By creating an international associative website, the IC did not consider that it will be able to transmit better the information to MSF associative members. Resource allocation is another aspect of maintaining the active link with MSF members. Instead of creating a new website, the new model of Tukul [MSF International intranet] will permit creating a space for associative movement issues.

On 14 March 2010, the IC finalised a governance reform proposal that would be submitted for approval to the general assemblies of all MSF associations.

The main point of the proposal was the setting up of an International General Assembly (IGA) that would be recognised by all the entities and associative members as the highest authority in the movement. This IGA would delegate some specific powers to an international board (IB) for supervision of the social mission and resource sharing in compliance with the MSF movement strategic multi-year vision.

An international association of individual members should be established by 2012, with a membership open to any associative member of existing entities and others meeting the associative criteria. Its election mechanism should be defined by the IC by December 2010.

document

MSF Governance Reform, IC Proposal to general assemblies, 14 March 2010 (in English)

Extract :

The IC is asking the general assemblies to endorse the general direction of its proposal, to make any recommendations they see necessary to help improve it and then to delegate to each of their respective presidents the mandate to promote these recommendations during the final discussion at the June 2010 IC in Amsterdam where the new associative governance for the movement will be decided. Recommendations of the GAs could range from, but should not be limited to, the role and composition of the IGA and IB, to the elements that a multiyear movement-wide strategic vision should contain, to the calendar for implementation of these changes. […]

FORMATION OF AN MSF INTERNATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND INTERNATIONAL BOARD

In accordance with an agreed timeline and implementation plan, the current international council will be transformed into an International general assembly (IGA).

IGA membership will comprise a range of entities including elected representatives of a) current national section associations and b) other associative entities approved by the IC (until it is transformed into an IGA) including an Association of Individual Members.

The IGA is the highest authority of the movement and is recognised as such by all entities and associative members. […]

4. Implementation Plan

The IC recommends the following main steps of a plan for the implementation of this proposal:

• The transition to fully establish the IGA and IB will be phased over approximately two years, with a view to completing the process by or before 2012, with an IB established by June 2011 and the last IC meeting taking place in December 2010.

• By December 2010 the IC will decide on:

o The types and criteria of entities to be represented.

o The number of seats to be created on the IGA and when.

• An Association of Individual Members would be established by 2012, with membership potentially being open to any associative member of existing entities and other individuals who meet prescribed associative criteria. A mechanism for electing representatives from this new associative entity to the IGA would be determined by the IC by December 2010.

INTERVIEW

There were a lot of people who wanted to be association members but did not want to be identified with a particular country section. They wanted to be associated with MSF. But then of course you had the problems: who do they elect? Who do they hold responsible to? How are they connected to an operational section or mission?

Another concern was that around the time we were getting requests from Philippines and all these different countries to set up MSF sections. We were worried that at some point it would be like in the Red Cross Federation, with 150 MSF sections. But they did not want to be in MSF Holland or MSF Belgium. They wanted to be in the Philippines and connected to MSF. So, we wanted to give a safety valve to these people. So we said: ‘OK, with the movement-wide association, we have an association, but this is a way to bring people together, regardless of section. They feel that they are part of the MSF movement, but don’t feel the pressure to create MSF Philippines or MSF Bolivia, and then to have their president on the IGA, etc.’ There was also a question of ‘What does operationality mean?’ A lot of these people argued: ‘we are national staff in the field, we have worked with more than one section. So, our idea of operationality is very different from the historical understanding of operationality which was ‘one association, one operation’.’ And even that had changed, because now operations were collectively shared by four sections.

So, this was another step in the growth of that associative dimension. You had a movement-wide association where people were associating from all over the world. Of course, we knew that there were real problems in how this could all come together because this was not a natural progression. But we also wanted to see how it worked. We had said at that time that we would give it five years and do an evaluation to see if it works. If it doesn’t, then we shut it down and figure out another way of doing it. It was also an experiment at that time to see how a movement-wide association would help.

Dr Unni Karunakara, MSF International president from June 2010 to June 2013 (in English)

From 25 to 27 June 2010, building on the various general assemblies’ recommendations, the IC voted the main lines of the governance reform proposal.

Among other decisions, they agreed on the setting up and definition of membership criteria for any MSF association of individual members and the modalities of its representation on the IGA. The ‘movement-wide association’ (MWA) was to be considered as any MSF association and meet the same criteria for representation at the IGA.

document

MSF Governance Reform: June 2010 International Council Decisions, Final, 1 July 2010 (in English)

Extract:

Introduction

The international council (IC) held a meeting on 25-27 June in order to make decisions based on the outcomes of the general assembly voting/debates on the governance proposal launched at the March conference in Barcelona. The aim was to discuss the recommendations made by the 19 general assemblies, all of which voted in favour of the direction of the proposal, to further develop proposals submitted by the governance working-group, and to make decisions on the next steps. […]

Decision on ‘Association of Individual Members’

Note: In the implementation plan contained in the March proposal, it was stated that ‘An Association of Individual Members would be established by 2012, with membership potentially being open to any associative member of existing entities and other individuals who meet prescribed associative criteria. A mechanism for electing representatives from this new associative entity to the IGA would be determined by the IC by December 2010.’

At the June 2010 IC it was decided that:

The ICB is to define a subgroup to continue to develop a plan for the creation of an Association of Individual Members and a mechanism for representation on the IGA taking into consideration the options and recommendations of the Governance WG. The plan should be presented at the December 2010 IC.

1.0 Minimum Criteria for Individual Membership of Any MSF Associative Entity

Principles of individual membership in an associative entity

• Inclusive and accessible to all eligible persons regardless of where they are located in the world.

• Rooted in experience, commitment and understanding of the implementation of MSF’s Social Mission.

• Values operational experience outside of home-country environment. Membership is to be a choice.

Note: The following criteria are suggested as the minimum criteria for an individual membership in any associative entity. Existing and future associative entities should strive to meet these criteria, acknowledging the need for flexibility according to strong preference of national sections or legal requirements.

Criteria for individual membership:

International Field Experience/Expat membership

• >6 months (cumulative) or two missions experience as ‘international staff’ in an MSF mission. Individuals can be ex-field staff or currently employed in missions.

National staff membership (Field and HQ)

• One year (cumulative) working as a locally contracted employee of an MSF office.

Volunteer membership

• Two years (cumulative) of unpaid work, student assistance or internship for an MSF office. Minimum hours contributed to be determined by board.

Other forms of membership

• Members not meeting the above criteria may be included with board approval as long as these do not exceed 5% of total voting associative membership.

Rights of individual members:

Multiple Memberships

• There is no limit on the number of memberships that a person may hold.

• An individual cannot be elected to the board of more than one section.

Voting (Association level)

• Employees on local contracts should not vote in local board elections for reasons of conflict of interest.

• At all other times, all members have a full and equal vote.

• Members without MSF experience cannot represent more than 5% of vote.

Employment and other benefits

• No employee of an MSF entity (field or HQ) can be a voting member of an MSF board.

Forfeiture of membership

• A member that is expelled from a mission for reasons of personal misconduct or conduct damaging to the mission of MSF may lose their association membership subject to a decision of the board.

• A member who is expelled from one MSF association for reasons of misconduct may not be allowed to join and/or may automatically lose their membership of other MSF associations

Duties of individual members:

Organisational

• To participate in the annual general assembly of the association.

• To elect partially or fully the members of the association board.

• To hold the board to account for its duties.

• To declare other affiliations that may be in contradiction to the values and principles of MSF.

• If a member fails to vote (directly or by proxy) in two out of three general assemblies, their membership may be forfeited.

Social Mission

• To actively promote medical-humanitarian action through associative participation.

• To ensure adherence to the MSF charter and act in the interests of the movement as a whole.

Exceptions

• If an association is not complying with the above criteria for any reason, they should report these exceptions to the IGA.

In the following months, the ICB took over from the associative working group for these outstanding issues.

In December 2010, the IC decided that the MWA would be included in the statutes as a constituency of individual members and would have two seats at the IGA.

Several ICB members, most of them presidents of operational centres raised concerns that over time the future MWA might end up having more representatives to the IGA than any other MSF entity, specifically the operational ones. They insisted that associative membership should remain closely linked to operations.

document

Minutes from the MSF International Council Board Meeting, 18-19 November 2010 (in English)

Extract:

The ICB divided the tasks and organised several small working groups: […]

• Movement-wide association – led by Matt [Spitzer, MSF USA president] with the support of the international associative coordinator and Adrio [Bachetta] and Unni [Karunakara, MSF International president] […]

International statutes revision […]

Marie-Pierre [Allié, MSF France president] strongly expressed her reservations as to including the individual representation of the Movement-wide Association in the statutes. For her, it is important to maintain only legal entities and not individuals at the IGA. […]

Movement-wide Association (MWA)

Matt, Adrio, Unni and Michalis [Fotiadis, MSF International Associative Coordinator] prepare a document reestablishing the MWA. […]

Unni made the rounds of the ICB [international council board] members asking them to express if they:

• agree with the concept

• agree with the concept, but still have reservations

• disagree with the concept.

Paula [Farias, MSF Spain president] MSF expressed her agreement with the concept as a way forward and also mentioned that it was agreed during the IC to explore the possibility of the MWA. She recommended cross-checking the wording, as in some places the message was contradictory.

Reinhard [Doerflinger, MSF International vice-president] agreed with the concept. He further recommended addressing the more pragmatic approach for defending the creation of MWA and to not stress too much the philosophic side. It will surely be considered further at the international coordination. There is still a need to further define the black holes and safeguards of this concept of the MWA.

Marie-Pierre liked the document, but still remains sceptical: difference of interpretation of diagnosis, fear of creating a ‘monster’ bureaucracy, questions as to proximity to operations or representation of the MWA at the IGA need to be clarified.

Meinie [Nicolai, MSF Belgium president] agreed with most of the things outlined in the document, but still believes that the proposed concept is not the best option proposed, but rather the second best. For her it is important to maintain the link to the operations as proposed by MSF B during the March Conference in Barcelona.

Pim [de Graaf, MSF Holland president] mentioned that this concept was discussed at the OCA council. MSF Canada expressed big reservations about the whole concept. For Pim, the reason to generate discussion is not very inspiring. It will be better to stress the added value of the MWA. He also stated that there is a risk of being disconnected from the operations. For example, the East African Associative (EAA) initiative was invited to join the OCA council. James is representing EAA and thus the IGA will be able and be strong enough to put an end to its existence if it does not work.

Kris also reminded those present that, to ensure the success of the MWA, especially at the beginning, it will rely on the support and efforts of the existing associative coordinators/officers/network.

Kris agrees with the concept. She believes the IC already discussed and agreed to look at the concept of the movement-wide association, therefore this concept is being presented today to the ICB.

Matt believes we can have an internal agreement without going for a full legal registration, but again this will need to be checked by lawyers. He underlines the importance of having the link to the operations. He further expressed the need to adapt our networking to today’s reality and conceive new ways of doing this.

In conclusion,

The majority of the ICB, agreed in principle with the concept of MWA. The ICB’s concerns are to be taken into consideration while elaborating the document for the IC. The ICB requested that the legal construction of the MWA and how it can be represented at the IGA be checked with the lawyer. The ICB also requested a clear proposal including the timeframe

document

Minutes from the MSF International Council Meeting, 10-12 December 2010 (in English)

Extract:

Movement-wide association (MWA)

The IC directs that the individual criteria and institutional member composition and size criteria in the statutes apply to the MWA.

Decision (4/5 majority), passed with:

19 votes in favor

1 abstention (MSF Italy)

The IC directs that MWA be incorporated into the statutes as a constituency of individual members (based on individual membership/ affiliation in MSF International).

Decision (4/5 majority), passed with:

16 votes in favor

3 against (MSF France, MSF Belgium, MSF Italy)

1 abstention (MSF Australia)

The IC directs that representation of the MWA (having met the above-mentioned criteria) have two seats to the IGA. The IC recommends that the IGA considers representation of the MWA.

14 in favour - 2 against - 4 abstentions. (Not a formal pass, but accepted as a positive indication to allow development of draft statutes and a detailed proposal. Subject to formal IC approval in June 2011)

The IC directs, and commits to support, MWA proposal be developed for presentation and endorsement in June 2011, with the elements as described in the below work plan […]

Decision (4/5 majority), passed with:

16 votes in favour

3 against

1 abstention

document

Minutes from the MSF International Council Board Meeting, 17 February 2011 (in English)

Extract:

Meinie [Nicolai, MSF Belgium president] believes the document [revised statutes] is good overall, although she understands Françoise’s [Bouchet-Saulnier, MSF Legal Director] worries regarding a possible threat to the core of MSF and how we manage operations.

She has several comments, questions and issues of concern:

> The new version of the statutes and related documents continue to state that the IGA can decide to increase the number of MWA representatives at the IGA. She insists that this be removed from all the documents; although this statement is right, mentioning it provides too much of a political message.

> How is accountability of individual members ensured? (The lawyers seem to share this concern).

> How to make sure that OCs will still have a strong enough voice?

> How to find the right balance between the need for more inclusiveness and for a variety of members at the IGA and the risk of the IGA becoming too big and impossible to manage? (We don’t want MSF to become some sort of IFRC [International Federation of Red Cross].)

> We should maybe look into the veto right (minority veto of OCs or other sections’ veto) as proposed by Reinhard [Doerflinger, MSF International vice-president].

> We should also look into operationality and make it more of an IB responsibility.

Unni explains that, in the new version of the GRP [Governance reform process] update, any mention of a possible increase in the number of MWA representatives at the IGA has been removed as per discussions at the Paris ICB. The confusion arises from the fact that IC did not reach the four-fifths majority in Athens on the issue of two-seat representation for the MWA (four-fifths is required for any change of the statutes). […]

Marie-Pierre [Allié, MSF France president] shares Meinie’s concerns and considers these to be crucial issues.

[…] Abiy [Tamrat, MSF Switzerland president] understands the concerns regarding the balance of power between the IGA and the IB and he agrees on the need for clear recommendations about how the MWA should be integrated into the IGA. […]

Movement Wide Association - MWA

Marie-Pierre and Meinie are concerned about the accountability of the individual members of the MWA and that of their representatives. Although a section is an administrative burden, it provides clearer accountability lines than currently proposed for the constituency of individual members. […]

Matt [Spitzer, MSF USA President] notes that currently, associations hold their leadership to account but do not hold each of their individual members to account. So we shouldn’t have unrealistic expectations.

Kris [Torgeson, MSF International Secretary General] does not understand the desire to have the MWA set up as a separate legal structure with a board, etc, as it will add a level of bureaucracy that is unnecessary and would be less controlable than if set up as a constituency. She believes that the constituency set up will actually allow a better control as any member of the MWA has to be accepted by both the IB and the IGA, who also have the right to expel whoever they want. Such an extent of control is not in place even in any of the sectional associations.

document

Draft Minutes from the MSF International Council Board Meeting, 10 March 2011 (in English)

Extract:

Meinie [Nicolai, MSF Belgium President] notes that the Belgian board’s position is as follows:

1. Don’t feel like changing their own statutes (criteria for membership).

2. Inclusiveness should take place at the level of new institutional members not at the MWA level.

3. With regard to the inclusion of new institutional members, there is currently too much focus on rigid criteria and too little on soft criteria (what will people bring to the table).

4. There are concerns about the accountability of the MWA representatives,

5. There should be two MWA representatives at the IGA and no mention of another possible set up. […]

Meinie is not so worried about the risk of centralisation. But she insists that associative membership remain closely linked to operations (this is the very reason why she still has problems understanding the MWA).

document

Minutes from the MSF International Council Board Teleconference Meeting, 17 May 2011 (in English)

Extract:

MWA […]

Discussion/Comments

Meinie [Nicolai, MSF Belgium president] recalls that associations are made of individuals and are not institutions/bureaucracy. […]

Meinie notes that OCB has been very involved with regional associative life and would prefer this rather than individual membership. Marie-Pierre finds the associative concept developed by OCB quite interesting. She’s had positive feedback from people from the field.

Matt [Spitzer, MSF USA President] explains that there is no intention to promote individual membership. He will reword these four objectives according to Meinie’s comments.

Meinie still has concerns about the accountability of this MWA. Unni [Karunakara, MSF International president] invites her to provide something in writing regarding this concern.

Pim [de Graaf, MSF Holland president] wonders how the MWA should be presented; should we encourage the members of the current section associations to also become members of the MWA or shouldn’t we? He wonders if there should be a note to accompany this document in order to explain how we approach that and either recommend or explain the options to our members.

For Unni, it is important to present all of the associative options to the members (regional, project associated group etc.), then it is up to each individual to decide and we should not make a recommendation to them and take an institutional position on this.

On 25 June 2011, the IC unanimously approved the new statutes of the ‘Médecins Sans Frontières International’, abridged ‘MSF International’ Association.

The entities that made up the current MSF International Association (the 19 so far represented at the IC) would be de facto recognised as part of the new MSF International association. Henceforth, any new entity wishing to join the latter should meet several conditions and its application would be submitted to the IGA for a vote. Once recognised as an institutional member of the MSF international movement, the MWA would have two voting representatives at the IGA.

document

MSF International Statutes, 25 June 2011 (in English)
Extract:

Title 2 – Membership […]

Article 6 – Conditions for Membership […]

4. Membership as Institutional Member or Individual Member is subject to the approval of the International General Assembly, or upon delegation of the International General Assembly, to the approval of the International Board, in their sole discretion. […]

Article 7 – Right to vote and Representation of Members

[…]

3. Individual Members do not have the right to vote. However, provided that the Movement- wide Individual Membership comprises at least 50 members, of which one third have international experience of working in Operational Projects and one third have a medical background, the Movement-wide Individual Membership can elect two representatives who shall each have one vote. At least one representative must have a medical background. The specific requirements and procedures are set out in the Internal Rules. […]

Title 14 – Entry into force – Transitional provisions – Interpretation

[…]

Article 34 - Transitional Provisions

The associations that are Members of the Association (sections) at the time these Statutes are approved become Institutional Members automatically. The International Board shall be formed of the members of the international council board, as defined in the previous statutes of the Association, until the election of the new international board at the next scheduled meeting of the international general assembly.

document

Minutes from the MSF International Council Meeting, 24-26 June 2011 (in English)

Extract:

Other Presentation Points

Updates since Dec IC expresses general endorsement of the request for an MWA work plan:

• The work plan is not 100% finished. There is space for people to come in with their own ideas and interpretations to it.

• We do not expect new associations that are present at IC today to follow this work plan.

• There was a proposal at the last IC to move toward having association coordination rather than coordinator. There is still more discussion to be had about this. There are some worries to be addressed but there is plenty of room for useful feedback to be incorporated.

• The objectives of the work plan have been refined based on suggestions. Many have brought up ideas to increase animation of association at the field level.

• The membership criteria have already been approved.

• The suggested process moving forward would be for the IAC to screen the plan and then open up the discussion as an internal check so that others can raise questions and concerns. This would ensure information sharing.

• At the last IC, IGA representation failed to pass with four-fifths approval by just one vote so the issue was left unresolved. I think the proposal set forth makes the most sense for now and the IGA can change or adjust it if necessary.

Representative Accountability

When representatives are not on the legal board and don’t have statutes, it is even more important to ensure that they will be held accountable. To address this issue, we propose:

• A formal report once a year.

• To take part in events to gather IGA input or to debrief the IGA.

• To work in cooperation with the IAC and ASC.

Remote Accountability

One criticism was that we need an actual, physical association as a group to have a real association. Distance voting has increased and the number of distant members, even those who do not vote, is even larger so for me this seems like an issue that we are currently facing as well.

Recommend looking at building networks or information-sharing tools to allow for members to associate without being physically present.

Management and Coordination

As we work on these issues to animate association in field and foster debate/give voice to those who do not currently have access to the debate, the discussion will be out there and accessible to all.

There is also some concern about putting too much responsibility on the IAC. We must ensure that others are willing to help them with their significant work.

The idea for ‘coordination’ rather than a ‘coordinator’ is that the person in Michalis’ position should be sharing their responsibilities with a co-coordinator. This plan has already been worked into the budget.

We do need to confirm our coordination staff strategy in the IO budget and also consider their roles in the IO budget for next year.

Many associations have benefited from outside investment and we should acknowledge the importance of people voluntarily investing in the association and undertaking responsibilities.

Mobilisation

Some Ideas:

• This issue is regularly debated across associations with webinar and chat forums.

• The possibility of establishing specialised sub-groups or sub-forums to address this topic.

• Not having so many internal boundaries will hopefully facilitate more openness and communication.

Timeline

Proposal will be discussed at the IGA with the intent to launch thereafter. To open the association during the recruitment and election of IGA would be too chaotic. Once the IGA is settled, association membership can be opened.

Representatives to the IGA will be voted on next June when MWA representatives take their seats.

Over the following years, the IB discussed the MWA application for membership to the IGA. However, the MWA made little progress in gaining significant associative participation, partly due to a lack of support and guidance from the IB.

This support eventually came in late 2013 and early 2014 when the IB endorsed an interim board for the MWA, pushed for a leadership grouping to emerge and invited two members of the association as observers to the IGA.

document

Minutes from MSF International Board meeting, 6 February 2012 (in English)

Extract:

12. MOVEMENT-WIDE ASSOCIATION

Unni [Karunakara, MSF International President] explains that the Movement-Wide Association (MWA) is referenced in the statutes and internal rules. Eligibility for membership is similar to national associations and the association character will be medical and expatriate. The international association does not have automatic IGA representation and has to apply once it is eligible. Clair [Mills, MSF IB elected member] asks if it is realistic for the IB to review individual applicants and Unni suggests it be delegated to the ASC [Associative Standing Committee] with a list of new members being read out at IB meetings.

Several IB members emphasise the need to check eligibility against existing blacklists in the sections. Michalis [Fotiadis, MSF International associative coordinator] feels two referees can be hard to verify and may be problematic for some applicants. Kris [Torgeson, MSF International secretary general] is concerned that having two referees is unnecessarily heavy and could cause power issues in missions, and he suggests one reference from anyone within MSF (HQ, OC or mission). José-Antonio [Bastos, MSF Spain President] feels this rule should be as similar as possible to the national associations. Colin [McIlreavy, MSF International Board elected member] replies that if there is a concern about a mission then the rule could be one signature from an expatriate mission but Unni is concerned that this is too complex. Marie-Pierre [Allié, MSF France president] considers the application should be verified before membership is given. Unni feels verification will be difficult. Morten [Rostrup, MSF International Board elected member] suggests starting with the requirement of two references and acknowledging there will be constraints on joining. Unni asks if the requirements would be the same for e.g. a Norwegian association member who wants to become a member or if it will be automatic. Morten feels if you have already been vetted in an MSF association then you can apply more easily. For Abiy [Tamrat, MSF Switzerland president] the processes in different associations will vary too much for this to apply. Unni feels membership will be sought by people who have experience with MSF and in recent history there have not been any problems, so he suggests not being overly restrictive as if it becomes too difficult people will not join the MWA.

Marie-Pierre [Allié, MSF France president] objects to the proposal to waive fees and Clair suggests setting a low fee. Unni explains it was a recommendation from the ASC because nominal amounts differ in different countries. Michalis says it is a symbolic, practical way to renew membership but points at the practical difficulties it creates. Unni stresses the need to treat people equitably and suggests a first year without fee. Marie-Pierre and Clair prefer having a fee from the start.

Colin asks if there are criteria for what we expect from the members and Meinie explains the statues state rights and duties, e.g. active participation in the association, presence at GA, holding the executive accountable. Colin replies he is dissatisfied with the current association system as very few members are active throughout the year, and he feels the MWA has potential to become the engine of MSF. Colin asks Unni where he sees the MWA in 10 years’ time and if it will still be rooted in national associations or [will] have a much greater influence. Unni replies that this was a central question on the development of the MWA; it is another mode of associating within MSF and he hopes the MWA will grow, discuss and debate issues, bring them to the IGA and develop ways to feedback. The way for the MWA to develop is either to have leaders inside or for the IB to take the time to develop it. José-Antonio feels it has to grow on its own and that there is a need to keep associations linked to OCs. Unni would prefer the IB not to be responsible but for the MWA membership to build the association and determine what it stands for. Unni would like the ASC to have distance from the MWA as it is a separate association. Once membership is open early members will be encouraged to form a mission statement, establish processes for representation and accountability. There will be information on the MWA at the FADs and it will be sent through Associative Coordinators. Application information will be available on the website. Meinie agrees its direction should come from its membership but feels the IB has a duty to look at MWA membership and Unni agrees the ASC can do this.

In conclusion, the IB

• Agrees with the launch and application process details:

o Two references to be verified, including through blacklist consultation,

o A USD 10 membership fee, if feasible according to the IO,

o Review of applications delegated to the ASC; and

• Is in favour of encouraging the MWA to set its own dynamics and agenda.

document

Minutes from the MSF International Board, 16-17 December 2013, Amsterdam (in English)

Extract:

MWA

The IB receives an MWA update from Darin [Portnoy, MSF International Board elected member]. Darin shares that, despite inconsistent engagement, they have had close to 30-40 people for some events and that this is higher attendance and participation than many other associations. He shares that the main problem has been that the IB has not provided enough guidance to the MWA, thus creating a lack of leadership and ownership. Abiy [Tamrat, MSF Switzerland president] adds that the IB has to be a bit lenient in letting this association develop, especially given its unique characteristics and structure.

In the ensuing discussion, there is a general feeling that MWA does not have enough structure to put forward an application. There is general consensus that there is a lack of leadership and member engagement. There is a belief that it is not the full responsibility of the IB to take over this. Thus, the suggestion is made to give them the responsibility of creating a virtual board and see what happens with such an initiative.

In the end, Darin says MWA application is not complete and not ready for an IGA vote. Darin gets general support for the MWA proposal, with Mego abstaining. There is a request for feedback for the MWA proposal at February IB.

In conclusion and in view of the concerns about the functioning of the MWA,

• The IB assigns Darin, Rachel and Abiy to meet with MWA leaders in order to clarify IB expectations and MWA objectives and organisation.

• The IB supports looking into the movement for ongoing support of MWA associative coordination. […]

After a discussion on the MWA (see the MWA discussion above), it is agreed that the MWA membership needs further engagement prior to presenting their application. Referencing the ‘Conditions for Membership’ section in the MSF statutes, it is agreed that the application is currently incomplete. MSF Statutes:

For the Movement-wide Association Application (MWA):

The IB approves the ASC proposal to engage further with the MWA before presenting an application. The proposal includes:

• More time before an endorsement decision for 2014; progress on IB-MWA discussions and planning will be presented at the February 2014 IB meeting.

• Commitment from specific IB members to engage with a group from the MWA.

• Support and resourcing for 2014.

• Communication to the movement.

document

Final Outcomes, MSF International Board meeting, 21 February 2014 (in English)

Extract:

ASSOCIATIVE

Feedback on MWA

Following up the IB meeting outcomes in December 2013, Darin [Portnoy, MSF International Board elected member] presents feedback on the MWA and an interim leadership proposal, shared with the IB in preparation for the meeting.

The IB largely supports what is presented. The group stresses the importance of the composition and profiles of the individuals for the interim board. There is a suggestion that the individuals should be from countries that do not already have an association.

In conclusion:

The IB agrees to support (1) the interim board proposal, (2) the ongoing engagement of the IB in that interim board described in the proposal, (3) a discussion of the MWA in general (not the application) at the IGA and (4) the MWA proposal returning for review in 2015. Furthermore, the IB delegates Darin, Rachel [Kidell-Monroe, MSF International Board elected member] and Abiy [Tamrat, MSF Switzerland president] to work with MWA members to develop the MWA interim board. […]

In 2015, the IB decided that all the funds of the associative budget (associations without executives) would be put in the IO budget. This meant that MSF Latin America, East Africa and the MWA budgets would go into the IO budget. The IB requested that in the meantime, these associations ensure all their funding sources are reported to the IB.

document

Final Outcomes, MSF International Board meeting, 29 April 2014 (in English)

Extract:

MWA INTERIM BOARD

Darin [Portnoy, MSF International Board elected member] updates IB on MWA interim leadership team/interim board.

• Two MWA members volunteered and these members will be invited to form an MWA leadership forum. In addition, these two members will attend the IGA this year as MWA observers and work on the MWA application for Institutional Membership for 2015.

• One IB member will work with the forum as well. Previously it was decided that Darin,

Rachel [Kidell-Monroe, MSF International Board elected member] and Abiy [Tamrat, MSF Switzerland president] will take it in turn to provide support.

On March 2019, the IB eventually recognized that the MWA was fulfilling the requirements stated in the status and decided that it would now have two voting IGA representatives.

document

‘The IB times’, MSF International Board newsletter, 27 mars 2019 (in English)

Extract:

2019 IGA: THE MOVEMENT-WIDE ASSOCIATION (MWA) WILL HAVE 2 VOTING IGA REPS!

The proposal on the table was to implement the International Statutes and Internal Rules, which clearly state that the members of the IGA are (Title 4, Article 11),

a. the president,

b. the representatives of the Institutional Members,

c. the Representatives of the Movement-Wide Individual Membership (aka MWA)

And that (Article 7, Paragraph 3): …provided that the Movement-Wide Individual Membership comprises at least 50 members, of which one third have international experience of working in Operational Projects and one third have a Medical Background, the Movement-Wide Individual Membership can elect two Representatives who shall each have one vote. At least one Representative must have a Medical Background.

After an analysis of its membership figures (1,179 members in March 2019, with 54,5% having international experience and 46,6% having a medical background) the IB has concluded that the MWA does meet those statutory requirements.

Further, the IB recognizes the growing maturity of the MWA, and its development into an active and cohesive Associative community. The IB also commended the work of the MWA on developing an association without borders with connectedness to operations via virtual channels (as originally envisioned in 2011). Consequently, the IB is enthusiastically supporting the implementation of the statutes, which coincides with the spirit of the Call4Change, the Associative expectation 4 (‘Representation at the MSF Intl Asso level will be relevant to our social mission and reach beyond national identities’) endorsed by the 2015 IGA, as well as the renewed willingness of the IGA in 2018 to foster and improve inclusiveness within the movement.

The 2019 IGA will therefore welcome two new additional voters, the MWA IGA reps, and will become a group of 51 voting representatives.