Personal impressions from the community meetings on Monday, 10 June.

Times: 19.30 to 23.30
Turn-out: approx 80 people
(Full) Board Members present: Mr. Holderbecke & Mr. Pierleoni
(Half) Board members present: Mr. Haffner (Mrs. Haffner was travelling)

A great deal of concern was expressed in respect of the referendum procedure, not least the fact that, by any measure - whether a referendum or a plebiscite, whether private or public, whether in Switzerland or otherwise - the right of the interested parties should be equally presented. The Board's flat refusal to allow their envelope and related SFr. 2.20 stamp per Swiss resident capita (more abroad) totalling approx SFr. 15'000 in postage fees alone - was heavily criticised both from a democratic standpoint and that of the fair use of the Community's proceeds. The justification presented relied mainly on the fact the Board members where personally - and within a private sphere - putting their mandate "on the table" so there could be no second (or third) leaflet from third parties. The Board's claim the procedure was the same as that applicable to elections (each candidate presented him/her-self with no "opposition") gathered no additional consensus.

The Faculty - at large - and Parents expressed the view the successive appearance of:

mobbing by the D.G. untoward parents and teachers alike without Board intervention,

blatant fraud (Mr. R's file),

arrogance and contempt untoward the initiators of, and those otherwise present at, the Extra Ordinary General Assembly in February by trying to prevent the completion of the Agenda (the vote of no/confidence to the D.G. and those members of the Board who backed him), and then - having ensured the said vote could not take place earlier than 01.00 AM - claiming the results - notwithstanding within the scope of a Charter- conform and Consultative only General Assembly - were "not democratic" and thus irrelevant,

arrogance and contempt untoward those parents within P&G who were being "invited to vote" for 3 names to give way a "united group able to make the right decisions"

misstatements (absolute deadline 14 May for electing members stated in Mr. Pierleoni's now public internal e-mail to P & G personnel - instead of on the Gen. Assembly date/place),

shady inequity and unfairness against the majority of the Community (failed attempt to provide a particular group of parents with undue voting favours, actual difference in respect of re-enrolment fees) - in contradiction with the Charter's express provisions,

the Board's breach of the Charter (not publishing the Minutes of the February Extra Ordinary General Assembly within the Charter specified time-frame, and rather conspicuously still not available at the time they put their mandate to the Community when the latter stems from the former),

inadequate, one-sided and contradictory leaflet accompanying the referendum ballot, have, cumulated, lead to an irreversible situation of mistrust in the morals, ethics, fairness, competence of the remaining elected Board members.

Many questions came from those members of the American part of the Community, and those who have joined the school recently. The extent of the issues, in numbers and amplitude, caused them a great deal of concern. The impact of "all this mess" on the children was at the top of the agenda.

The 4th Campus gave rise to further questions. Questions related to

the Saconnex project being stated both as "achievements" and "objectives" in the Board "white paper",

the figures given differing from those provided by the D.G. on May 28,

the financial healthiness of the project being gravely compromised and/or doubtful,

the "commitment" of those for whom the 4th Campus is targeted (few of those present) in 2005 or 6 or 7,

the apparent blind sailing in heavy weather with few life-jackets on board.

Mr. Pierleoni and Holderbecke

showed quite some courage in the circumstances, the room was rather tense and discontent, many present clearly in favour of a No vote and - in the case of Mr. Pierleoni - three (at least) P&G "people" (whether part of the Community, or not, is not known) were standing over-viewing his performance, kept their self-control rather well and lacked the arrogance which has been experienced on other occasions,

evidenced their firm obstination in staying "on board", refusing to resign, giving un-relented support to the D.G.'s actions,

accepting however the current Board, if voted out, would remain in place - as a sole caterer - until the new elections in September or early October

The Board members present apeared on occasion to have not realised a school is not managed like a multinational, that children are products, teachers are not slaves and parents - or other payers - are not cows to be milked.

The general feeling in the room was one of disgust untoward the remaining elected Board members' lack of elegance, their non-abiding by the Charter's text or spirit, the refusal to acknowledge the problems that lead to the current situation, the plain aggravation from February onwards, the lack of response to quite some questions raised, and generally to the dirtying of the school's reputation.

Just to update you with some of my own impressions from the La Chât campus meeting I attended last night.

Chairing the meeting were John Boggs, Mrs Gromadski and the UN rep.

If I read between the lines, the referendum is a face saving exercise for an honorable exit. The board may be hoping for a no confidence outcome because the contrary would only prolong the stalemate . There are essentially two problems: 1 staff-director general relationship 2 board/director general relationship with whole community.

Problem 1 is very real and is most misunderstood by the public. It is the cause of problem no 2 which is what the parents and alumni are scutinising at the moment.

Mr Schumann, the staff rep. gave an example. There is dissatisfaction on the Pregny campus with management (resulting in huge staff turnover) Schumann complains to DG. DG wants specifics, says 'general malaise' too vague. Schumann produces 4 page unsigned report by Pregny staff with specifics. DG says, because report unsigned, unable to act. Problems remain unsolved. Now take this to the governing board and again problems remain unsolved. Therefore, the logical progression of all this is to take it to the members of the community to decide.

Problem 2 : We have now established that we have a bad greenkeeper and the committee is weak.

So the members are now scrutinising the golf course under the microscope finding fault with many aspects that they would have ignored in the past. Conclusion: We need a new and better greenkeeper, the type who can say 'the buck stops here' because neither the committee nor the members are professional greenkeepers.

Finally, some parents questioned the need for a DG at all. I personally think it is necessary. 75 years ago there was no UN. Today we have Kofi Annan. 75 years ago there was no Ecolint. Today we need our own 'Kofi Annan' in the field of international education.

I attended the open meeting on the referendum at La Chat, 10.06.02, and was very disturbed to hear Carol Panchaud's response to a parent wanting to know what the issues were surrounding the referendum and what purpose removing the current board would have. Mme Panchaud's short response was, by voting the current board out and voting a new board in, the new board would then be in a position to sack the D.G, the main cause of the malaise, in her opinion. Why does Mme Panchaud presume the new board will want to sack to D.G. unless she is already in possession of information pertaining to that outcome, and could some one be kind enough to explain the difference between Board Rigging and Vote Rigging?