Motion Registry

(If you click --> here, you can access the full excell file.  All motions will be uploaded on this page little by little.  Be advised that the Motions Committee is still working on completing the document.  Contact Rebecca or Jon if you have any questions. 


Passed motions

2019:

2018:

2017:

2016:

2015:

2014:

2013:

2012:

2011:

2010:

2009:

2008:

2000:


2019

(click here for the top of the page)

 
 
 
 

To assure that this population has access to relevant healthcare, and insure inclusion, MSF should recognize the elderly as a distinctly vulnerable population; seek to understand their special medical and social vulnerabilities in the context of humanitarian crises.

(Rebecca Cederholm and the OCG FAD in the Ukraine)

Alongside working on access to affordable and effective antivenom, MSF should actively promote snakebite prevention programs where the emphasis is on education and information.  

(Hella Hultin, MSF member; Patric Falck, Advisor, Member of Stockholms Herpetologiska förening)


 

  

2018

(click here for top of page)

  
Debriefing consultations for fieldworkers  

Debriefings should be made possible, by MSF Sweden, for returning fieldworkers without the fieldworker having to apply for it or having to get a doctors certificate. 

(Peter  Moberger, Helena Nordenstedt, Elin Folkesson, Gunnar Hagström, Stefan Liljegren, Annelie Eriksson and Fredrik Rücker)

Status:

Two meetings were held between HR and Board in 2018. Memo on Motion re. “Debriefing consultations for fieldworkers” was provided to the MSF Sweden Association, containing a written update of the efforts undertaken by the executive and a response to the Motion.

  
Support from MSF Sweden to Associative Life in the Field  

The General Assembly requests that the Board in MSF Sweden develops a long, sustainable partnership (3-5 years or longer) with one or more associations/associative committees, preferably but not exclusively in countries/areas where MSF carries humanitarian projects, and that the necessary means are allocated to make it a meaningful cooperation. The partnership(s) will be defined based on the outcomes of an assessment exploring what ways of cooperation can be developed vis-à-vis other associations/associative committees that have considerably less resources and support. The assessment must take into account measures not to duplicate efforts or overlapping with similar initiatives from other Partner Sections or OC.

(Göran Svedin, Ana Chaurio, Jessica Svefors, Jon Gunnarsson Ruthman)

Status:

MSF Evening was held on 11/10/18 to discuss how best to interpret the motion; invited were MSF Sweden association, members from MSF SA, EAA and representatives from the Association in Brussels.

  
Growth and Evolution of MSF  

MSF is evolving and growing in an uncontrolled way that does not allow us to use our resources in the best possible way to help those whom we serve, namely our patients and communities. We have to change our attitudes in order to bring positive and meaningful change to our strategic thinking in the future. In 2019 OCs will align the timing of their Strategic Plans. We call on all OCs (both Boards and Executives) to include a written commitment within each Strategic Plan to state the principle behind any intended growth, to analyze the potential risks of this growth and to outline the mitigations that will be put in place to avert these risks. We would also expect all OCs to incorporate their principled decisions on growth into their annual reporting and approval processes.Furthermore, in order to avoid unnecessary growth within each OC we expect to see, within the Strategic Plans, and reporting and approval processes, clear evidence of synergies, sharing of ideas and closer working collaborations between OCs.

(Katrin Kisswani, Adam Thomas, Andreas Häggström)

Status:

The MSF SE Board discussed this motion on 25 August 2018. Outgoing International General Secretary, Jérôme Oberreit, presented his personal views on the future of MSF, how it should grow and the opportunities and threats to this growth. After discussion it was agreed that MSF SE would continue to follow up the IGA motion by identifying key association members in each OC who can champion the motion with their respective executives.The Growth WG have met several times and agreed to continue to proactively drive the growth discussion in the movement. There need to be regular contacts with the different national boards as the OC Boards.MSF SE: a discussion was held between the board and executives at February board meeting 2019. Adam has discussed growth at MSF Norway board meeting.  OCB: Katrin, Karine and Agnes is following the motion at OCB level. 2018_12_17, discussion was held between the DOs and motion supporters. The intention is there but further follow- up is needed to both explain the motion and to make sure the motion is implemented.  OCA: Karin is following up the motion and work on collecting support through MSF Canada, yet the motion to be discussed. OCG: Jon met with representatives from OCG board where there is a clear need of support and follow up on our side. Follow up is planned for the coming year by Jon. OCBA: discussion was held with the Agora representatives Mali (MSF NO representative) and Angelique (MSF SE member). Statements, positions paper and minutes was shared with them to proceed on discussing the issue at the Agora. 2019_01_15, a meeting was held with OC board representatives: Mali and Angelique for Agora, Karin for OCA, Karine and Katrin for OCB, Philip Sacks (MSF US) for OCP and Adam as motion lead. Interpretation of motion was discussed. The SP is on the agenda and it’s important to make sure reflection around growth is to be included. OCP: the MSF SE board (discussion between Adam and Philip) will influence through the MSF US board.  The US is showing strong leadership within the OCP group in terms of concrete actions going forward (Response to “Call for Change” and demands around RSA4). No update yet on SP progress.   IB; meeting was held between Katrin and Pete where it was clear that MSF SE board need to support the IB to better understand how to follow up and support the motion on growth.

  
Online platform for global and local associational discussion  

The internet is one of mankind’s greatest achievements. It has the possibility of connecting everyone to everyone. What we would like to see is MSF taking advantage of this by connecting the associations globally, giving each their own space within an online social platform for the possibility for members to have discussion with the rest of the movement.What we propose is that the IGA takes a decision on this motion to implement this global solution so that members don’t have to rely on third part services as Facebook to have our discussions on for ownership of content and privacy’s sake.

(Karl Green, Jon Gunnarsson Ruthman)

Status:

Brand-new MSF participatory app and digital platform has been launched: Fluicity is the new space for Movement-wide debates and discussions, open to each and every MSFer around the Movement, wherever they are. 


 

 

 

 

 

2017

(click here for top of page)

  
Prevention and management of harassment and abuse of power in MSF work spaces and creating a culture of zero tolerance towards harassment and abuse of power  

This motion calls for a work environment that is free from power abuse and harassment, by asking on behalf of the MSF Sweden and Norway associations that the boards of MSF Sweden and MSF Norway mandate the OCB Board to: 1) Ensure that all future and current managers (that are responsible for staff) and human resources staff at field, headquarters and partner section level are trained and given tools to identify, prevent and stop any form of power abuse and harassment. It is recommended that MSF management endorses the intersectionality perspective to this end (on intersectionality see for instance this video in Swedish or Framing Intersectionality by Lutz, Vivar and Supik (2011) or other scholarly works); 2) Ensure that the MSF-OCB institutionalises adequate measures for reporting and accountability mechanisms of abuse, misconduct and harassment of its staff; 3) Ensure that a SANOU like training addressing the issue of abuse of power, harassment (including sexual harassment) and discrimination is created and regularly presented in all OCB missions.

(Eugene Bushayija, Maria Schutz and John Tzanos)

Status:

The Full ExCom (all GD’s in MSF sections and branch offices) released a statement related to the topic end of 2017. A proposal on the way forward in the matter was presented in the Core ExCom (GD group of the OC’s) and to the International Board (IB) in December 2017. The IB requested that a ToR for the People Standing Committee is created and that a proposal for an Executive taskforce on Diversity and Inclusion is developed.  MSF SE allocated resources to support the Facilitator of the Ethical Platforms in OCB in   developing and implementing a toolbox on wanted and unwanted behaviour. The toolbox contains SOPs and guidance to support management and staff in the field in prevention and management of behavioural issues. MSF SE had a 1-year mandate as an ambassador on the Intersectional Platform on Ethical Behaviour from January 2018. Ambassador needs to organize a system of ambassadorship throughout all partner sections and branch offices regarding ethical behaviour. “Power talks” were driven by MSF SE association and led by John Tzanos and Johanna Lönn: Through an associative initiative two MSF Evenings were held from the Swedish office, discussing norms and power abuses. At OCB level, 3 points in the motion are being addressed; definition, prevention, reporting and management of cases. Lisbeth Leysen has taken on a full-time position as “facilitator for the ethical platforms” to reinforce the Garec and link relevant platforms. She has been reinforced with two additional temporary staff (one from MSF SE). A tool box on how to raise awareness, prevent and address issues of harassment and discrimination is developed, for field as HQ level. 1.) The GAREC and HR departments are working on the “translation” of the Employee Charter, that applies at HQ and field level. The vision of OCB is mobility of staff and therefore all staff will carry the same behavioral code and rules while on assignment with OCB. 2.) The OCB Management values are defined and translated to all level of the HR cycle (introduction – recruitment – training – monitoring etc.). 3.) The management values are a complement to the; MSF Charter, OCB Strategic Orientation 2016-2019 and OCB Employee Charter. All the workforce of OCB has a commitment to uphold those values toward each other. 4.) SANOU and other trainings, especially PPD, are revised to include those issues 5.) OCB survey on Discrimination and Harassment for national staff was planned for 2018. The survey was supposed to be designed with the support of the Luxor unit and would address racism as well (OCA has conducted a similar survey and OCG is planning to do the same with support of Epicenter). 6.) MSF SE and MSF South Africa were drafting a proposal to respond to the call by the International Office to lead the taskforce for the movement on Inclusion and Abuse. The process to develop a text on a zero-tolerance position on transactional sex of any description (sexual favours, etc.) that can be translated into OC policies started. International office has tasked the GDs of MSF SE and MSF South Africa to drive the process forward.

  
Survey regarding sexual violence and harassment  

We ask the MSFNO and MSFSE board to engage the whole MSF movement to perform a large-scale representative survey of its workforce (office and field staff, female and male) in order to enable documentation and analysis regarding prevalence rates and patterns of sexual violence and harassment, the effects on victims, and MSF’s response.The result of the assessment should guide the MSF movement in identifying and implementing procedures aiming to reduce exposure and improve the follow up of the victims. 

(Lindis Hurum, Alan Lefevre, Agnese Pinto, Dina Hovland, Tonje Karlsen)

Status:

Muriel Cornelis (Human Resource Director OCB) sent out the Outcomes and Actions regarding the OCB survey of Discrimination and Harassment, in which HQ, partner section and international staff participated (a survey for national staff was planned for January 2018). The Outcomes and Actions on the OCB survey of Discrimination and Harassment were presented at the OCB Board meeting on 24/11 2017. An update was sent to members in MSF SE through the member Newsletter. The discussion is followed as well by the President Katrin Kisswani at OCB Board level. OCB survey on Discrimination and Harassment for national staff was under planning. The survey was supposed to be conducted with the support of Luxor unit and e.g. focus group discussion. The plan was to take the opportunity to address racism as well. (OCA has conducted a similar survey and OCG was planning for a survey for all HR groups).

  

 

2016

(click here for top of page)

  

Motions for MSF Sweden

Remuneration of Board Member

Given the increased work load of the President, we mandate the Board to investigate the relationship between a reasonable workload and level remuneration, taken into account the newly approved statutes making it possible to remunerate 2 Board Members and thus potentially sharing the workload. 

We ask that the Board report back to the Association before a change is put in action

(Jon Gunnarsson Ruthman, Rebecca Cederholm, Sheila Bore) 

Status GA 2017:

A working group was formed to bring the motion forward, discussions were held with the Board and a decision were taken in April Board meeting.

The board formed a working group consisting of the vice-president, the secretary and the treasurer that prepared the pre discussion material. The material consisted of an inventory of the level of remuneration to Board members in other MSF associations, as well as similar organisations in Sweden. The sitting president was asked to log her workload and tasks during one month. The working group also drafted a SWOT analysis. A pre-discussion session was held during a teleconference with the board and a one hour discussion led by a former Board member was held in an open session. The sitting president was not present during the discussions.

In conclusion the MSF Sweden Board acknowledges the high workload of the president, but the sitting Board is not in favour of increasing the remuneration to MSF Sweden Board member(s). The arguments included among other things that MSF is to its spirit and tradition an organization of volunteers and that it is important to safeguard this identity. The sitting Board states that the Board need to find improved strategies of working to decrease the workload of the President.

Motions for MSF Nordic

Humanitarian ethics: MSF's commitment to ethics reflection, discussion, and concrete measures to improve our humanitarian action and to reduce moral distress

The motion sponsors hope that this motion will improve the daily work of MSF employees and help challenges that exist today on addressing these issues. The motion has been presented at GA’s in many sections already, and the idea is to implement this in the whole MSF. The motion will make sure that humanitarian ethics are moved up on the priority list. 

Difficult ethical decisions are made in many of MSF projects, for example in our work on Ebola. All field workers know medical ethics, but it can still be difficult to face ethical choices in the field. 

The motion writers want to add talks and discussions on ethics in debriefings and homecomings, and in general put this on the agenda in different forums.
The audience comments that the motion does not mention any concrete measures. Many agree that talks on ethics should be part of business as usual, and that staff everywhere needs to be engaged in this. Field staff could benefit a lot of having a more clear view of what decisions to make. MSF has mentoring programs and guidelines on this subject, but the motion will
implement difficult ethical discussions on the daily activities in MSF. No one should feel alone when making difficult ethical decisions. It was discussed to give the authors concrete proposals to clarify the motion. Concrete suggestions from the audience is using this in evaluation criteria, workshops with fieldworkers, and in more discussions.

Motion Sponsors: (Gunnhildur Arnadottir; Kristina Bolme Kuhn; Anneli Eriksson; Gunnar Hagström; Stefan Liljegren; Angelique Robert; Johan von Schreeb)

Status: 

IB led working group was formed. The IB suggested that discussions should be held at the different associative/board/OC levels of the associative members represented in the group. Resources and literature on humanitarian ethics were decided to be made available in the movement, by creating a central place for people to access them. The working group decided to create associative spaces to initiate discussions that can explore the different categories of ethical dilemmas in the OCs and across the movement, possibly using the proposal in the reflection paper written by Rachel, Philippe and John. The reflection paper is describing what the motion is and is not. The sections sponsoring the motion have also discussed it and reported plans for their concrete activities/proposals. The motion inspired the medical debate “Medical Ethics”, which was discussed in the MSF SE/NO GA 2017. The Board reached out to the motion writers and discussed interpretation and angels for the GA debate.  

Promote Disability Inclusion

Recognizing that persons with disabilities are often the most in need in regions where MSF works and that their exclusion may hamper our humanitarian identity and impartiality, MSF should: 1) Initiate actions to develop its awareness on this risk of exclusion of persons with disabilities; 2) Develop dialogue with organizations of persons with disabilities where/when possible; 3) Take in account accessibility to persons with disabilities of our facilities and of our communication materials.

(Patrice Vastel)

Status:

The person responsible for follow-up of the motion from OCB was Karine Nordstrand. MSF Norway (represented by Kyrre Lind) proposed its assistance regarding the implementation of the motion, by developing a training on raising awareness. Bart Janssen (OCB Director of operations) preferred mapping inclusiveness in our operations, i.e. as a pilot project in one of our missions. There was a common understanding that this motion is not about creating vertical programs. A pilot project mapping inclusiveness in our operations was identified as a possible starting point. The construction of the new Kenema hospital in Sierra Leone was seen as an excellent opportunity for implementing smart solutions for inclusion. Contact with the construction team has been established, and MSF Norway has offered to provide support in this process. MSF Norway organized a workshop on awareness and inclusion of persons with disabilities in our projects in Oslo on June 14th.If the concept is successful, it may be developed further and repeated elsewhere. 


 

 2015:
(click here for top of page)
Security motion 

That the Norwegian Board proposes and actively works for the following through its representation in international fora: That the Operational Centers and the International Board works towards closer cooperation within the MSF movement on security issues, firstly by mandating and monitoring the implementation of the following concrete actions in-line with the May 2013 IB resolution:  1.Creating one intersectional security incident monitoring system which is easy to use, capturing all significant incidents and staff groups equally, and available to all OCs for reporting, analysis, monitoring, learning and research purposes. 2.Ensuring coordination and sharing of all field-based security information and risk analysis between missions in the same contexts (local, national or regional) in order to improve real-time risk analysis and mitigation efforts.  Ensuring that reviews be made of all serious incidents and near-incidents after their resolution, and ensuring that the findings of these reviews be made available in full to the RIOD, ExCom, and IB. In cases of extreme sensitivity or defined residual risk, explained redactions can be made before sharing beyond these levels.

(Nils Mørk)

Rohingya motion 

Confronted with the systematic persecution of the Rohingya, the dilemma faced by MSF in Rakhine State is emblematic of the broader MSF dilemma of ‘temoignage versus access’. A dilemma which has produced a long-term strategy of public silence that continued even after the expulsion of MSF from Rakhine state in February 2014. Despite limited medical access and despite that the Rohingya face an ongoing humanitarian crisis the strategy of public silence continues to this day.  As Association members we are concerned about this continued public silence and do not believe ut to be in line with MSF principles and core values. Therefore we call on the IGA Representatives from MSF-Sweden and MSF-Norway to bring the following motion on MSF’s humanitarian strategy in Rakhine to the 2015 International General Assembly:  We request that temoignage remains at the core of our operations and urge the IGA to adopt a strong positionining on the ongoing humanitarian crisis which the Rohingya population is living under in Rakhine State. Further we request an international and public, relevant and well-coordinated advocacy campaignbe launched in order to highlight the plight of the population and to advocate for a change. 

(Ingrid Johansen, Jonas Hågensen and Malin Franson)

Institutional Funds 

The general assembly requests the executive of MSF operational centres to report to the members at theIGA 2016: The advantages and disadvantages of reducing institutional funds from states and multilateral state institutions to zero procent, thus becming fully privately funded, and the recommendation of the executive in this regard. 

(Michiel Hofman, Johan Mast and Jenny Lindblad)

Harmonizing Statutes 

In order to give clear direction to the MSF Nordic vision process, the associations of MSF Norway and MSF Sweden mandates the board of MSF Norway and MSF Sweden to present a shared set of legal statutes, fully harmonized between both associations and also towards the statutes of MSF International, and applicable for the general governance of both associations. The proposed set of common statute changesshould be presented for approval by the associative at the joing General Assembly in 2016. 

(Alexander Buchmann, Lindis Hurum, Stefan Liljegren, and John Tzanos)


 

 2014

(click here for top of page)

The Board of MSf-Sweden propse the following amendment to the Bylaws

We need to change the wording of the Bylaws where we talk about the items to be discussed during the General Assembly as the Auditor’s Report (revisionsberättelsen) should be separate from the Annual Report. §5 Added point: -presentation and approval of the Auditor´s Report.

(The Board of Msf Sweden)

Motion on General Assembly Participation


MSF Sweden is a membership organisation. The highest decisional body of MSF is the general assembly (GA). It is vital for MSF that members participate in the associative life and that they come to the GA, discuss and vote for the future direction of MSF. However the participation of members that do not have a HQ contract in the GA remains low, too low.

A challenge at the GA, is to ensure a separation of the association from the executive (office), they play different roles. There is however a risk that the roles can be confused. To ensure that the associative has dominance at the GA, a majority of the votes should come from members who do not have a HQ contract. In some MSF sections this is regulated in the statutes “less than 50% of the votes at the GA can come from people with a HQ contract”

In MSF international statutes it is written:

a) Employees on local contracts (HQ and national, my remark) should not vote in local board elections for reasons of conflict of interests.

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

c) Members without MSF experience cannot represent more than 5% of the voting rights.

The best way to ensure a healthy balance of votes, in favour of the associative, at the GA is to encourage MSF members to participate and vote. This can be done by, for example electronic voting (which is already available in MSF), live web casting of the GA etc

This motions proposes:

That the board of MSF Sweden should develop and implement a clear strategy that increase active participation of MSF Sweden members in the general assembly.

(Anneli Eriksson, Stefan Peterson, Göran Svedin, Johan von Schreeb)

Motion on Pediatrics

When MSF SE was launched in 1993 it provided a channel through which Swedish doctors could contribute to the humanitarian commitment through international humanitarian medical work. Since then MSFSE has been successful in a number of areas. In Sweden, MSF has grown into a respected and trusted humanitarian actor. For the movement, the Swedish section provides a consistent flow of field workers and we are one of the strongest sections in fund raising. However when it comes to discussions and development of the medical quality of our fieldwork and mission, MSF SE has been remarkably absent.

Paediatrics is an area currently in focus. Small children are the most vulnerable beneficiaries in a crisis. Yet until recently paediatrics in MSF has been considered part of general medicine and child health care has been based on that of adults rather than on the specific needs that exist for children. With the birth of the international paediatric working group in 2008, we are now witnessing a paradigm shift in the importance of paediatrics in MSF. The paediatric action plan as well as the neonatal policy has lifted the importance of quality of care for the children in MSF missions. Much of the implementation of subsequent  activities requires dedicated competent staff for the field. Further we need operational research on the roll out of new guidelines, we need to ensure that the competence of field workers appropriately match projects, we need to see to that the field setting is provided the right tools for optimal paediatric care, we need appropriate staff training to manage children and there needs to be a continuous update of paediatric guidelines with current evidence base. Much of this work has been set off in the operational centers, but more support is needed.

With this motion we argue that MSFSE should step up its contribution to improve the quality of paediatric medical care in the field. Sweden has a strong paediatric community of nurses and doctors, and is in the frontline in neonatal research which makes it an important contributor to paediatric care. 

We challenge MSFSE (the association, the board and the executive) to move beyond the role of mere resource providers, and take an active role in improving the quality of the field based paediatrics. We ask MSFSE to advocate and support operational research in areas of paediatrics, and in particular, the new field based neonatology. We urge MSFSE to identify channels through which Swedish experts in neonatology and paediatrics best could contribute to the quality of MSF field operations. While MSFSE should take ownership of this ambition, we ask the board to present the outcome at the next GA. ​

Lets do it, lets make more children and in particular neonates, part of our survival stories.​

(Sahar Nejat , Kristina Elfving and Eugene Bushayija​)


 

 2013

(click here for top of page)

MSF-Nordic

The will and vision of the General Assembly is that MSF-Sweden, as far as possible, should merge its association, board and office with the associations, boards and offices of the other Scandinavian MSF-sections in order to make “MSF-Nordic” a single entity, a de facto MSF-section.  The General Assembly mandates the Board of Directors to work towards this objective and to report back to future General Assemblies on the progress made.

(Göran Svedin)

Status:

There have been ongoing work and meetings in different constellations, with the full Boards, with the Presidents, with the Nordic Focal Points and with the General Directors.  KPMG have assisted pro bono with some of the work.  There have been two meetings with the Association do discuss the Nordic questions: the PowWow in March and a MSF-Evening in April. 

Conflict of Interest

No clear guidance on what is considered a conflict of interest for Board Members in MSF-Sweden.
For the Board of MSF-Sweden to provide the Election Committee with clear guidance of what consists of a conflict of interest for someone to serve on the Board of Directors.
(Anneli Eriksson)

Status:

The Board has created a guideline that will be up for approval on the TC April 28, and then provided to the Election Committee.


 

 2012:
(click here for top of page)
 to encourage the MSF Sweden board to co-opt at least one, external member to the board (non-MSF member with great experience from the business/management or communications/advocacy sector, as well as from other board assignments). 

Background: While the executive of MSF Sweden is growing very quickly, both in fundraising, communications, and staff, the growth in the association is modest. To find good, and available, candidates for the board is a challenge every year, both for the Swedish and the international representation. The competence of the executive staff is steadily improving, and their need for professional guidance and critical questioning is more important than ever. Therefore, we would like to see a bigger representation of external members in the MSF Sweden board. The possibility to co-opt (appoint non-MSF members to the board without the right to vote) does already exist, but has rarely been used in the history of MSF Sweden. A co-opted member could after one year stand to be elected as as a regular board member. In the MSF OCB board there is since one year an external elected board member (Special Advisor to the President of the ICRC) and the MSF US board has for a long time been supported by an “advisory board”. We believe that it would be very rewarding both for the MSF Swedish board and for the executive to have expert competences with major experience from previous board assignments in the MSF Sweden board.  We propose that the GA of MSF Sweden vote in favor of the following motion:  Before the next GA, the MSF Sweden board should co-opt at least one external board member with significant experience from the business/management or communication/advocacy sector, as well as from other board assignments in major companies or organizations. 

(Lina Eidmark, Robert Höglund, Frida Lagerholm, Ingrid Holmberg, Hanna Broberg, Katharina Ervanius, Elin Stråkendal, Arash Aeineh, Nina Lundgren, Malin Lager )

Motion on MSF Sweden accountability.

Background:  The evaluations project has been operational since 2010.  The evaluations are performed on the request of the field, the Operational Centers and other international platforms. To achieve true accountability and transparency evaluations should also be performed on the request of the partner sections. MSF Sweden is owned by the Swedish association which elects a board that ensures that the section fulfill its mandate. According to that mandate The Swedish section of MSF is accountable to both our patients (indirectly) and the Swedish donors (directly). The questions are do we live up to our accountability? Motion: We demand the board of MSF Sweden to use its power (through already existing channels) to, when necessary, request evaluations of identified projects/mission, as well as follow up on the process and ask for direct feedback. 

(Anna Karin Sjöblom, Maria Schütz, Anneli Eriksson, Kristina Bolme, Karima Hammadi and Eugene Bushayija )


 

2011:

(click here for top of page)

Motion on Board Terms

Background: As MSF has grown, both in Sweden and internationally, Board Members have an increased responsibility to be involved and knowledgeable about what is going on in MSF-Sweden, in OCB, and in the movement.  Though the fiduciary responsibility is towards the Swedish Association, many of the debates and decisions taken in Sweden are international.  As a Board it is important that we are able to take our responsibility as an OCB partner and come with input be a jour with what is going on. We have seen that it takes time to fully understand what it entails to be a Board Member - the legal fiduciary responsibilities of overseeing an organization that brings in more than 300 million SEK, and sends close to 150 Swedish field workers to the field every year.  Given the scope of operations, the first year on the Board is part of the learning curve.  Therefore the Board suggests prolonging the mandate from two years to three years for regular members and from one year to two years for deputy members.   This would also create a greater continuity on the Board.  Should this motion be accepted, the Board suggests the following transition plan:   We will have to stagger the terms in the 2012 and 2013 elections for regular members.  In 2012 four new Regular Board Members will be elected according to this schedule:   '-  2 for a term of one year each;   '-         1 for a term of two years, and:  '-  1 for a term of three years.   And in 2013 5 new Regular Board Members will be elected according to this schedule:  '

-1 for a term of one year; '- 1 for a term of two years, and; '- 3 for a term of three years. Starting in 2014 two new Regular Board Members will be elected each for a three year term, followed by two new Regular Board Members in 2015 for a three year term, followed by three new Regular Board Members in 2016 each for a three year term.  We will then keep alternating according to the bylaws so that we elect three Regular Board Members every three years (2016, 2019, 2022, etc.) and two Board Members every other year (2017, 2018, 2020, 2021, etc.) We will elect one Deputy Board Member for a two year term each year starting in 2012. Motion: 1. The Board suggests to change the Board terms from two years as a regular member to three years, and from one year to two years for deputy members. 2. Board Members will be elected to staggered terms in 2012 and 2013 according to the schedule above. 

Motion on Remuneration of Board Member
Background: Currently the bylaws require the General Assembly to approve the level of compensation given to the Board.  This presents one problem: The level of remuneration is not pre-determined, but rather is in accordance with the Internal Rules based on the work situation, the time that the chosen Board Member can devote to MSF Board Work without a major loss of income, and the demands on the position as expressed by the Association and can vary between 0% and 50% of Prisbasbeloppet.  This means that at the time of the General Assembly, it is not known who from the Board to be elected during the meeting is going to be compensated AND what level of compensation is needed. Instead the Board suggests that the General Assembly delegates the task of selecting the person who is to be remunerated based on the needs of the Board, and the level of compensation as specified in the Internal Rules. The Board will then be obligated to each year report back to the General Assembly on the level of compensation chosen as well as to ask for the Assembly to endorse the decision.  Motion: The Board suggests to change the wording in paragraph five so that the Board is obligated to report back on the level of compensation awarded the remunerated Board Member, and to ask the General Assembly to endorse it.

 

 2010:
(click here for top of page)
MSF Sweden should systematically act to create career opportunities within the field of disaster medicine/global health.
MSF Sweden should systematically act to create career opportunities within the field of disaster medicine/global health. MSF Sweden should work more firmly with Swedish universities to create more opportunities towards competence elevating education. MSF Sweden should strive to give volunteers the chance to conduct research within relevant fields of MSF’s sphere of activities (operational research) and ensure that the results are used in the field. The background to the motion is the challenge of maintaining field workers. More field workers would go on field missions if there would be a clearer career path for those who have done missions within MSF. We should develop collaborations with university to improve the capacity for linking a mission with a career. The benefit for MSF is that we would increase the capacity of volunteers but also enabling field volunteers to a challenging career at home.
(Anna Thompsson, Johan von Shreeb and Stefan Peterson)
 
Clarifying the role of the vice president in the bylaws.

The association needs a Vice President, a Vice President is usually elected at the constitutional board meeting, and the post is included in the Internal Rules. However, the Vice President is not mentioned in the bylaws of the association.  We are therefore proposing that the position of Vice President is added to the bylaws, in paragraph 9, adding that the Board internally elects the Vice President at the same time as the Secretary and Treasurer are elected.

(Erik Åkerman, PehrOlov Pehrson, Andreas Björnstad)

Status:

This motion will affect the statues and therefore require 2/3 majority and the approval of a unanimous board. The Board unanimously approved the motion on  May 3, 2010 .

Changing the bylaws of the approval of members, unanimously.  

When the General Assembly approved the changes to the bylaws last year, vis a vis approval of membership, the approval of membership shifted from the General Assembly to the Board of Directors. The General Assembly delegated the right to approve memberships to the Board, but reserved the right to be presented with a list of all members approved since the last GA in order to be able to offer recommendations to the Board. Now we need to make a change to paragraph 5 in order to have everything align. The change in paragraph five will be to add as point number 9: presentation of all members approved since the last General Assembly.

(Rebecca Cederholm and Lennart Dahlberg)


 

 2009:
(click here for top of page)
Motion on motions

To, as much as possible, benefit from members engagement in various questions and to give an opportunity to bring spontaneous motions to the General Assembly I propose that we change the rules for handing in motions. To lessen the risk of “coups” or that the General Assembly gets hijacked by endless motions the proposal includes a proviso where 80% of the voting members have to agree that any particular motion will be brought for discussion, in other words, a small minority can stop any given motion from being added to the agenda.  The General Assembly will vote on the each motion separately. If the assembly decides to add a motion to the agenda, the same rules will apply as for any other motion, in other words – as stipulated in paragraph 7 in the by-laws.

Proposed change to the by-laws:
The annual General Assembly shall also handle motions and propositions from the Board. Motions must be received by the Board no later than 20 days prior to the General Assembly. Motions and propositions shall be sent to the members no later than 10 days prior to the General Assembly. With the exception of motions dealing with the statutes of the association, motions can be handed in after the 20 day cut off, but will only be added to the agenda for discussion if 4/5th of the voting members agree.

Motion on allowing MSF members not in Stockholm to attend the MSF-Evenings remotely 
MSF-Sweden has a rich associative life, with for example MSF-evenings held at the office in Stockholm once a month, with interesting debates and lectures.  However it is difficult for members living in other parts of the country to participate in these sessions. We therefore suggest that the board look into the possibility of sending the debates by video link or another web-based technology to the satellite groups. It would not be difficult to find equipment at local universities or hospitals which could be available for free.  As far as we know the office has already been on link with Brussels so why not with the rest of the country?  Besides from strengthening the associative life of MSF-Sweden outside of the capital, setting this motion into reality would also reduce traveling costs and combat climate change.
Motion on chaning the membership criteria

1. When you volunteer to go to the field you are automatically seen as part of the association.  Being a volunteer entitles you to membership.  Or at least you will be offered membership as soon as you return.
2. You earn it after some time in the field.  In order to become a member you need to have some experience and knowledge of MSF.  Therefore it is necessary to have six months of field experience or two to three short missions before becoming a member (For MSF-HK it's three months)
3. In addition, in Belgium, it's also required that you have to have fairly recent experience with MSF.  If you haven't been to the field for the last three years your membership will be converted into a support membership without voting rights.  (Although you can ask to remain a member)
Proposed change to the Bylaws:
Membership in Läkare Utan Gränser may be acquired by working for the association in Sweden or abroad, in accordance with Art. 2.
- A prerequisite for membership is that field work for Läkare Utan Gränser have commenced.
- Membership may also be awarded by regular volunteer or employee work for Läkare Utan Gränser for a period of no less than 13 months. 
 
Motion on Membership II

Since membership is only granted once a year, it's practically impossible to join the Association after the General Assembly.  Therefore many pay for the membership, but are never made members (only in the case of new members, returning members are automatically renewed when they pay). In addition, membership in the association is on a calendar year, which means that if you pay in November you are granted one month's membership, and not a full year.  It is unfair to keep the current system, and it is necessary to make a change so that memberships can be approved on a rolling schedule and actually last for a full 12 months regardless of when the payment is received (so-called rolling membership). Regardless of when the membership is approved/renewed all members will have the opportunity to vote in one General Election per 12 months. 
In order for rolling membership to work there need to be a mechanism for approving memberships on a continuous basis, something the General Assembly could delegate to the Board.  New memberships would be published in the internal newsletter, and on the coming website after approval by the Board.  In addition, new memberships (approved after the last General Assembly) wuold be presented at the next GA each year.

Proposed change to the By-laws:
Membership is granted only to individuals, not to organizations.  The General Assembly delegates to the Board to approve new memberships in the association, but reserves the right to be presented with a list of all memberships approved since the last General Assembly in order to be able to offer recommendations to the Board on the approvals.


 

 2008:

(click here for top of page)
Timing of the GA

Upon the recommendation of the auditor it was suggested to change the wording in the statutes, in order to ensure that the timing of the GA falls within 6 moths from the year which it concerns, rather than as currently in no later that 9 months thereafter.

 

Remuneration to board members

The board carries responsibility for its decisions which is manifested at the GA by the voting on liability. It was proposed that each GA should have a point reviewing the status of remuneration to the board and that this point should be added to the statutes, where the agenda of the GA is outlined.

 


 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 2000:

 

(click here for top of page)
To revise the statues in order to increase the number of board members to nine

 

By: Rebecca Cederholm