board meeting minutes - marie curie alumni association · marie curie alumni association board...

MARIE CURIE ALUMNI ASSOCIATION Board Meeting Minutes – 18th November 2016

1

Board Meeting – Minutes Summary

This was the first meeting of the MCAA Board after the start of the new MCAA Support

Contract on 2016-10-07. Much of the discussions were therefore focussed on the twelve-

month plan that must be submitted to the EC by the contractor, with the approval of the

Board, as a contractual obligation. The key points of the meeting included:

The need to mobilise members to contribute more content and substance to the

association, in particular (but not only), via the Chapters and Working Groups.

The need to mobilise alternative sources of funding/resources to complement (and

eventually to replace) EC subsidy; this includes setting up formal and informal

partnerships with a variety of external organisations.

Revision of the organisation of the current MCAA web-site, and improvements to the

facilities afforded via this site.

Organisation of the General Assembly and Conference in Salamanca in late March

2017.

Modification of various administrative and budgetary processes under the new

contract arrangements.

Preparations for planned new and/or improved services for MCAA members.

Location

MCAA, c/o Inovamais, Avenue des Arts, 24, B-1000, Brussels, Belgium

GoToMeeting platform

Date

18th November 2016 – from 09:00 to 18:00 CET

Participants

Participant Brian CAHILL Chair of Executive Committee

Amit ZODGE Vice-Chair of Executive Committee

Marco MASIA Vice-Chair of Executive Committee

Maria-Antonietta Buccheri Secretary of Executive Committee

Francesco GRASSI Ordinary Board Member

Matthew DI FRANCO Ordinary Board Member

Ana LEAL

Contractor’s Team

Ana RIBEIRO

Simon ROBINSON

Joana SANTOS (on-line)

David ANCIAUX

Alexandros STYLIANOU (online)


2

Proxies

Cláudia Simão was unable to participate in the meeting and gave a proxy to Marco Masia

(Annex 1).

Bala Attili was unable to participate in the meeting and gave a proxy to Amit Zodge

(Annex 2).

Wuraola Akande was unable to participate in the meeting and gave a proxy to Brian

Cahill (Annex 3).

Zoran Andjelic was unable to participate in the meeting and gave a proxy to Francesco

Grassi (Annex 4).

Agenda Main points of the agenda:

Work Programme Feedback

- Management and Organisation

- Governance Budget

- Chapter and WG Management

- IT Infrastructure

Work Programme Feedback

- Alumni engagement

- External relations

General Assembly

- Program

- Hotels

- Microgrants

- Awards

Details of Partnership Negotiations

Structural Profiling

MCAA Academy

End of Meeting


3

1. Work Programme Feedback

Brian Cahill started by presenting the Work Programme topic by topic and the relevant feedback

was as follows:

Regarding the MCAA objectives to be described in the Work Programme, Brian Cahill believes

the Association must build real content and, for that, Working Groups should be energised and

people within the membership motivated to do things and present results at MCAA events. Also,

members should acknowledge MCAA when participating at events.

The Board members consider that the definition of the core values and mission of the

Association is a priority. The Association should make sure that its plans and objectives are

conveyed to the members.

As for the missing Organisational Chart, Ana Leal will send a draft structure to the Board

members for validation after the discussion held during this meeting.

Management and Organisation

“Encourage and assist the creation of new Chapters” - Odissefs Panopoulos advised the Board

not to open too many Chapters and to focus more on quality than quantity. Brian Cahill

mentioned that some Euraxess coordinators want the MCAA to open Chapters and the Chair has

been advising them on how to do it. Besides, according to the Chair, the MCAA has the resources

to run more Chapters. Francesco Grassi considers that instead of increasing the number of

Chapters, the Board should increase the number of successful Chapters, which could be

evaluated by the activities they perform, events they organise and budget expenditure.

Matthew DiFranco agrees and stated that Chapters must be more proactive.

“Encourage and assist the targeted creation of new Working Groups” - Matthew DiFranco

asked if there is any benefit in creating more Working Groups and Brian Cahill believes there are

lots of topics the Board wishes to work through WGs, since they need to be more active.

“Increase total membership by 700 new members in 2016/7” - According to Odissefs

Panopoulos, the European Commission will not accept this KPI. 700 new members per year is

not acceptable and indicates a bad performance. The Project Officer believes that 3000 new

members per year would be an acceptable number. Ana Leal mentioned that a note will be

added to the Work Programme stating it will depend on the lists provided by the European

Commission.

“Enhance services to members” - One of the activities suggested was the creation of a public

“suggestion box” for members and Ana Leal advised the Board to be careful to avoid too much

“junk”. It should be a form available on the web portal and only for members.


4

“Publish a summary of Board and ExCom meetings together with the Minutes” - Marco Masia

believes it is a good idea to be completely transparent and the Minutes should be validated by

the Governance Board before release. The Vice-Chair also suggested Aurelia Chaise to take care

of all communication issues, since she is a journalist (Contractor team). As for the governance

meetings, the Agenda must be circulated in advance and the minutes published within one

month of the meeting (although it has to be sent to the ExCom/Board in five working days).

Governance Budget

“Budget expenditure = 100%” - Ana Leal stated the Board could decide not to use the whole €

300.000 available for the first year. The expenditure for the GA was also discussed and Ana Leal

reminded everyone that the Contractor’s budget available for the GA was sufficient only for 250

people and not 500, which is the Board’s target. Odissefs Panopoulos stated that having too

many registrations is a good thing and, if needed, a solution would be found to cover the extra

expenses (for example, a Request for Amendment). Besides, there’s usually a gap between the

number of people registered and the number of people that attends the general Assembly.

As for the creation of an “Internal Governance” heading to cover travel of the Board members,

Odissefs Panopoulos advised the Board to be cautious with the amounts spent; otherwise it

might have a potential conflict of interest. According to the Project Officer, there must be

ceilings and real costs.

Chapter and WG Management

“At least one report dedicated to the Chapter’s activities in each Newsletter” - The Board

believes Chapters should report on their membership quarterly and on their activities every six

months to the MCAA Board. Brian Cahill considers that due to the different nature of Chapters

and WGs, the later should report on their activities to the Board more frequently – every three

months.

“Achieve at least 10% of Chapter funding needs from “local” sources” - According to Francesco

Grassi there is a need for having this information clear in the Guidelines, so all Chairs of chapters

are aware of this. Ana Leal considers this is too ambitious for the first year, but can maybe be

considered for the second and third years of the contract. Regarding the newsletters, the Chair

of the MCAA asked Ana Leal to send the SP-PT newsletter to be used as a template by all

Chapters.

IT Infrastructure

“The MCAA web-portal, in many ways, is the ‘heart’ of the association” - Matthew DiFranco

doesn’t agree with this statement, because he believes the members are the heart of the

association. The Portal is just a door to access the MCAA Members and Services.


5

“Improve free text search for anonymous users such as searching also in posts, and examine

the restrictions” - For “anonymous users” the Board considers external users and regarding

individual profiles of members, they should give authorisation to have their information public.

“Make private content publicly available” - The member can decide who sees the information

published, but it is up to the Board to decide which parts of the web-site are public and what

are private. Notis Pikros will provide the current state on this to the Board and Odissefs

Panopoulos.

“Replace the Calendar with a simple list of our own Events or ones with our participation” - As

for the Calendar on the web portal, the MCAA has been receiving requests to publish events in

this section and the Board decided to keep only the MCAA events on the calendar and advertise

external events in the forum and Social Media.

“Improve mass mailing” - Odissefs Panopoulos reminded the board that this is an urgent matter

and the e-mail system must be improved now and not next year. Besides, the Project Officer

stated it has to be impressive and that he could draft minimum specifications of what is required;

however, he prefers Intrasoft to propose the improvements in advance.

“Improve completeness of profiles” - The Board believes that only members with at least 90%

of the profile completed should be able to receive a MGAG and the Contractor will include this

information on the Call text for transparency.

“Allow streaming of content” - The Board wants to web stream webinars, the General Assembly

and some events each year, but no minimum number of events was agreed during the meeting.

This will be an external system from the web-portal.

“Allow on-line election of chairs of Chapters and WGs” - Ana Leal reminded the Board that

there is an election procedure in the new Guidelines proposed, so the Board can check it and

decide if it’s ok.

“Improve media in content” - The European Commission wishes to publish videos above 20 MB

on the web portal and this will be allowed.

“Examine usage of library” - Marco Masia stated the Board wants a more lively and catchier

web-site and asked Aurelia Chaise to recycle the content for engagement purposes and also to

have weekly blog entries on different topics.

“Improve e-mail communication” - The Board stated the link a member receives when there is

a new message on the web portal is not direct and considers the member should receive a direct

message on his/her personal inbox.


6

“Improve usability of Micro Grants applications and reimbursement” - The Board wants the

creation of pre-filled fields to make these processes easier, for example if a member is asking

for the reimbursement for attending the GA, the dates and venue of the GA should already be

filled-in.

“Improve Chapter membership process” - In order to make the process easier, the Board wants

new members to receive an automatic e-mail inviting them to join the respective chapter, when

they fill-in the location field. As another option, the Association can improve the welcome

message to raise awareness about the chapters.

“Paid advert campaigns on social media” - The Board decided to use advertising budget to

promote initiatives of Chapters and WGs and requested Aurelia Chaise to prepare a Social Media

plan for which the Communication WG will be requested to provide support. Brian Cahill’s main

interest is to create external networks.

“LinkedIn Growth” - Brian Cahill believes the LinkedIn posts should be more related to jobs and

career development, because these are the main interests of members.

2. Work Programme Feedback

Alumni engagement

“Recruit at least ten new high-level members per year” - Brian Cahill considers this number to

be very low, (maybe 100 would be more feasible) and that “high level” members need to be

clearly defined and perhaps include CEOs, Senior Managers and Editors from journals.

“Organise meetings with WGs Policy on Successful Researchers + Bridging Science and

Business (+ new working group on research career development?)” - Brian Cahill mentioned

the communication team could organise regular meetings to leverage information to feed

communication actions, as well as to force groups to do things.

“Change name of the PSR-WG to “Policy Working Group” - Regarding the intention of changing

the name of the Policy on Successful Researchers WG to “Policy WG”, Ana Leal reminded the

decision had to be made by the Board and all Board members attending the meeting approved

to change the name of the PSR-WG.

Decision 1 The name of the Policy on Successful Researchers WG was changed

to Policy WG.

“One Impact Survey” - Brian Cahill asked the Contractor what exactly was an Impact Survey and

Ana Leal explained that this survey addressed fellows to approach topics such as their


7

participation in MSCA as well as the benefits and impact of MSCA. The Chair of the Association

also mentioned he would like raw data of the surveys to be available.

“Newsletters” - Brian Cahill mentioned that since the specific content for the newsletters

included topics such as Policy, Career Development, Business and Science… the MCAA could

produce this content by interviewing the members from WGs, specially because the relation

with WGs needs to be fostered. Besides, the articles should be added to LinkedIn and other

Social Media.

“Magazines” - Ana Leal reminded the Board that, according to the specifications, the magazine

should be available for the next GA, if possible. As for the possibility of a paid subscription,

Odissefs Panopoulos mentioned he does not consider the magazine to have enough quality to

be paid, but it should have it in the future.

“On-line news services (weekly) and definition of how the information for these services will

be collected and validated” - The list of people who have authorisation to validate news items

is to be kept.

External relations

“Identification of relevant organisations for cooperation” - Brian Cahill mentioned the contacts

should not be restricted, and Ana Leal stated that not only the list of contacts is not restricted,

but it will also be enhanced and updated throughout the year. Regarding the discounts for MCAA

members, the Chair of the Association considers the use of discounts should be tracked.

3. General Assembly

Program

Brian Cahill presented the draft Agenda and the provisional speakers to be invited for the GA,

including their background and why they were thought of as speakers. Odissefs Panopoulos

advised the Board to make sure the Agenda is attractive to the members and that will depend,

not only on the topics, but the speakers as well. Still regarding the Agenda, Ana Ribeiro asked

the Board to take into consideration the fact that they are only allocating 30 minutes for the

registration of the attendees and for 250 people that could be chaotic. She also took the

opportunity to inform the Board that she will visit the GA premises to check where the parallel,

plenary and poster sessions, as well as the registration of the members, and meals, can take

place.

After discussion, some changes were made to schedules and topics.


8

Hotels

As for the hotels, Ana Ribeiro asked Marco Masia for details since he had been the person taking

care of this. The Vice Chair explained that he and Simon had been in contact with a company,

which was contacting hotels. Besides, the hotels could not be contacted directly because a

“Commitment” had been signed in August. This agreement meant that each member would

have to make an up-front payment to block the room, but would also get the money back during

check out. Marco Masia considers that this company is offering good prices, but more details on

how the process works should be requested to the company itself by the Contractor. Ana Leal

reminded the Board members that Agreements must be signed by two Board members, and to

take this into consideration in the future.

Micro-grants

The Board held a discussion on if the amount available for the general Assembly Heading should

be € 60.000 or € 75.000. Ana Leal started by confirming that € 60.000 would include 150 MGAGs

(including Chairs of Chapters and WGs, 1 MGAG for the photographer and MGAGs for the Slam

Session) and reminded the Board that MGAGs are lump sums of € 400. On the other hand,

€75.000 would include € 15.000 for the MCAA Academy. The Board decided to keep € 75.000 in

this Heading since it is possible to change it later, if needed.

Ana Leal will send an e-mail with clear specifications on which kind of expenditures are included

in each of the Budget Headings.

Awards

Brian Cahill mentioned the scope for the Call for Awards was wider this time, because it included

not only academia, but also industry. As for the honorary membership, the Board is thinking of

awarding it to Dario Pellizzon, but no final decision was taken.

4. Details of Partnership Negotiations

Structural Profiling

Regarding the implementation of the Structural Profiling and the MCAA profile card being

defined by Zoran Andjelic and Maurício Manfrini, Brian Cahill considers that there is a structure,

but no clear contents. According to the Chair of the Association, the benefits are not clear and

the members need to understand why they are being requested to enter this information.

Odissefs Panopoulos considers the Structural Profiling is not thought through well enough to be

used with certainty, and the Board considered this issue is not a priority for the initial months of

the first year of the current contract. The Project Officer took the opportunity to state that the


9

European Commission has the ambition of having a very good search mechanism on the web

portal and being easily searchable is key for the Structural Profiling.

MCAA Academy

Francesco Grassi presented the MCAA Academy, which is a one- to two-year programme to

support the career development of selected MCAA members based on focused, high-profile

tutorship and training opportunities (Annex 5). Since the Association cannot do everything in

the first year, this idea will stay on hold for a year, to be matured, and will be implemented in

the second year.

5. End of Meeting

There being no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned.


10

Action Summary of the last ExCom Meeting (23rd September 2016)

# Type1 Topic Outcome Proposed by Next step

responsible Status

1 A

Send draft structure of the

Organisational Chart to the

Board members for validation.

Organisational Chart Board Contractor

2 A

Send the SP-PT newsletter to be

used as a template by all

Chapters.

General Newsletter template Board Ana Leal

3 I

Inform which parts of the web

portal are public, and which are

private, to the Board and

Odissefs Panopoulos.

Board Notis Pikros

Not started/completed

Partially completed/sight delay

On track/completed


11

4 A

The Contractor will include on

the Call for MGAGs text that only

members with at least 90% of

the profile completed should be

able to receive a MGAG.

Board Simon Robinson

5 A

Prepare a Social Media plan for

which the Communication WG

will be requested to provide

support.

Social Media Plan Board Aurelia Chaise

6 A

Send an e-mail to the Board with

clear specifications on which

kind of expenditures are

included in each of the Budget

Headings.

Board Ana Leal


12

Annex 1 – Proxy from Cláudia Simão to Marco Masia


13

Annex 2 – Proxy from Bala Attili to Amit Zodge


14

Annex 3 – Proxy from Wuraola Akande to Brian Cahill


15

Annex 4 – Proxy from Zoran Andjelic to Francesco

Grassi


16

Annex 4 – MCAA Academy – Presentation by Francesco

Grassi


17


18

board meeting minutes - marie curie alumni association · marie curie alumni association board...

Documents