Our WC, Our Concern
Past weekend decision making event brought quorum with yes for AVC and no for WC, but the fact is that the Working Committee is very much needed. Now, to be in, and fully functional. How we are going to select it? When? So, informal invitation to meet by Amy simply resonate by many. Meeting on “sharing and exploring next steeps concerning the future Working Committee” showed that the need for residents to work on it together is big. No decision was taken last night but a promise of continuation of the exploration and dialog.
Dear all,
This is what I noted down. I concentrated mostly on the proposals on how to move forward. It is not everything that was said. It is not meant to be. Please feel free to add your comments here.
Proposals:
– Let Aurovilians nominate individuals to serve on the Working Committee, for consideration within the RA approved process (do not limit it to only self-nomination);
– Create an interim Working Committee and continue to explore and improve upon the RA approved process (which could be used to create the permanent Working Committee in the next six months or so);
– Ask the former Working Committee (those who served before the current Working Committee) to serve again;
– Ask the current Working Committee to continue for another six months while the residents continue to explore the RA approved process;
– Endorse only the proposed Working Committee signatories that were a result of the RA approved process;
– Within 1 month invite from the former 3 to 5 Working Committees, individuals to serve on the new Working Committee; this action would be faciliated by the Study Group on Organization.
Some points that were reiterated:
The Working Committee is the secretariat of the Residents Assembly;
The Working Committee referes to the Residents Assembly as much as possible;
The Working Committee needs the commitment of the Residents Assembly;
Residents need to give their support to the Working Committee now.
A question:
What did the Residents Assembly vote of no on 28 June 2014 mean? Did it mean no to the proposed members of the Working Committee only? Did it mean no to the process that resulted in the proposed members of the Working Committee? Did it mean no to both the members and the process in regards to the Working Committee?
A request:
Please re-read the Study Group on Organization process with an open heart.
I heard a few people ask for a follow-up gathering, to continue the sharing and listening and exploration. I heard both Saturday 5 July, or next Wednesday 9 July. It was proposed that the Residents Assembly Service facilitate it. It was also proposed that I bring it forward. I am happy to put the proposal forward for us to meet on Saturday 5 July at Unity Pavilion. I would have to make sure it’s available.
That’s it for now…
Thanks to each and every one of you for your presence today.
~Amy
—————————————————————————————————–
The Working Committee of the Residents’ Assembly has been established by the Auroville Foundation Act. Its main function, as described in the Act, is to assist the Resident’s Assembly or, as the case may be, the Governing board, in discharging its duties under this Act. The additional powers of the Working Committee are to create or constitute other organisations, trusts, societies of associations relatable in Auroville. For this, it requires the approval of the Governing Board.
The Working Committee consists of not more than seven members, which are chosen by the Resident’s Assembly from among themselves in a way and for a term of office as decided upon by the Residents’ Assembly.