User Tools

Site Tools


European Pirate Party 9th Council Meeting (23.1.2022)

Streaming on:
You Tube Day1:
You Tube Day2:

Minutes written by:

Tomáš Hozman
Petr Kocourek
Raman Ojha

Ordinary Members:

PP-AT Piratenpartei Österreichs
PP-CZ Česká pirátská strana
PP-EE Eesti Piraadipartei
PP-FI Piraattipuolue
PP-FR Parti Pirate
PP-DE Piratenpartei Deutschland
PP-GR Κόμμα Πειρατών Ελλάδας
PP-IS Píratar
PP-IT Partito Pirata
PP-LU Piratepartei Lëtzebuerg
PP-NL Piratenpartij
PP-NO Piratpartiet
PP-PL Polska Partia Piratów
PP-CAT Pirates de Catalunya
PC-ES Confederación Pirata
PP-SE Piratpartiet
PP-CH Piratenpartei Schweiz
PP-SL Piratska stranka Slovenije
PP-SK Pirátska strana - Slovensko
YPE Young Pirates of Europe
MEP The Pirate Group in the European Parliament

######################################## Present / Absent

PP-AT (1): Desertrold, Peter 'PeterTheOne' Grassberger
PP-CZ (6): Veronika Murzynová, Lukáš Doležal, Petr Kocourek, Jan Mareš
PP-EE (1):
PP-FI (1): present [??name??]
PP-FR (1): Etienne Evellin, Cédric Levieux
PP-DE (2): Gregory Engels, Alexander Spies
PP-GR (1): Thanasis Chantzios, Penelope Petropoulou, George Kissandrakis
PP-IS (3):
PP-IT (1):
PP-LU (2):
PP-NL (1):
PP-NO (1):
PP-PL (1):
PP-CAT (1): Exile
PC-ES (1):
PP-SE (1): Matti Brandt
PP-CH (1):
PP-SL (1):
PP-SK (1):
YPE (2): Matěj Bělohoubek
MEP (2): Samuel Vanco

Observer Members:

Pirati: Eleonora Serrati (Italy)

Board Members:

Mikuláš Peksa
Vice Chair:
Florie Marie
Sebastian Krone aka Bastian
Board Members:
Alessandro Ciofini (Pirati, PP-SE)
Jan Mareš (PP-CZ)
Lukáš Doležal (PP-CZ)

######################################## Agenda

10:40 - 11:15 Motions

11:15 – 11:45 Budget 2022 (including vote)

11:45 – 12:10 Presentations and elections of Chair, Vice Chairs,

12:10 - 13:30 Lunch break

13:30 - 15:00 Treasurer and Board member presentation and elections

15:00 - 15:15 Report of Code of Conduct Council. Q&A

15:15 - 16:00 CoC Council elections (cancelled)

15:25 - Meeting closed

######################################## -Procedure-

[ Meeting resumed at 10:51 ]

Thanasis Chantzios: In the EU, there was a directive regarding the protection of whistleblowers in general. However, as of today, only 6/27 have managed to adopt the law. Specifically in Greece, the whistleblowers lack protection. Greece has mourned ovre dozen of whistleblowers and journalists. More than 10 whistleblowers in one case have been found dead. Another one was murdered by mafia. The most recent example is [???] (Noor One and Novartis cases). There s no transparency around these cases. Greece has dismissed many magistrates that were in favor of public investigations of theses cases. They have been dismissed. Similarly, there is problems around the journalists investigating these cases (fabricated charges). EU has failed many times already to provide enough protection in accordance of the EU law. It is not acceptable to delay the changes of the legislative framework to assure protection of whistleblower. The main part of the motion proposed is to require transparency . We would like to engage in the procedure and the transitory process of the change of law and ensure the protection already. Proposing the motion number 1.
Mikuláš Peksa: I would invite you when the motion is voted on in the EU commission and to push at them with questions why they haven't passed it yet.
Thansis Chantzios: We can provide whatever we have on our side to support the questionnig.

Voting on motion regarding Whistleblowers:
We, members of the European Pirate Party, call upon pirate members of national parliaments, members of national delegations in the Council of Europe and members of the Pirate delegation in the European Parliament to further persist in favor of immediate response of all EU Member States, to comply with Directive (EU) 2019/1937, to build a secure and confidential environment within the European Union, for the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law (whistleblowers).

Etienne: I suggest we vote for the budget at 11:30, and between 11:30 - 12:30, we will proceed on the vote of the chair and vice-chair. Then, from 13:30 until the rest of the day, we'll elect the treasurer and do other items on the agenda.
Samuel: I am the delegate for MEPs. I think Nikolaus was trying to pass the motion for Julian Assange's Nobel Peace Prize, and I don't know if it has been passed.
Alessandro: He was asking if we can do it but due to the lack of time we suggested to do it today. There is still this motion to be presented and discussed today.
Etienne: It is a motion formalized somewhere?
Samuel: I'll paste it into Mattermost.
Etienne: [ Motion. ]

Whistleblowers serve as an important source of information in today’s world, and they should not be prosecuted for publishing information that is vital to the public, as was the case with whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. No one should be punished for reporting wrongdoing by states or other organisations.
Julian Assange sacrificed his personal well-being and freedom for the benefit of society, and that, in our opinion, qualifies him to be nominated for the Nobel Peace prize. The process of nomination itself is relatively simple.
With this motion, we ask the Council for support in nominating Assange for the prize.

Samuel: Whistleblowers are an important source of information in this world, and they should not be prosecuted for reporting information to the public. We've seen this with Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. In our opinion, the fact he risked his life for the public's good, Julian Assange deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. We've nominated him using the web form, and would like to ask for your support.
Mikuláš Peksa: Comment of the MEPs position. We have tested the support of the proposition. The Greens probably won't support and so it is our obligation to support the proposal since there is going to be a reluctance from others. We will be the drivers of this effort if it happens and I think we should be proud of it. There was no vote on it yet. We will be drivers of the motions. It is about the PP being perceived in the media as those working on the issue. There was no vote on it so far.

[ Voting on the motion. ]

Etienne: We can pass to the next item on the agenda - budget.
Sebastian: We've had a budget presented in the wiki for a while. There are two points: income and revenue. The income 4300€, hopefully if everybody pays there fee and we expect about 900 donations. I am in favor of the initial plan [Unintelligible]. We have about 4712€ in donations. Registraion in LUX is 100 and the registration of Logo and Brand is 1090€. For conferences, we support 1000€ of travel costs. You can't expect people paying from their own packet, there is 1500€. Overall, the income is -2534.15€. That is not a luxiorious budget but we can do something with that. The costs are the usual. We can discuss the budget intensively if interested or we can go vote on it. (,
Etienne: Any questions on the budget?
Alessandro: I didn't clearly understand the proposal. My first question is - I see two plans, I don't know if you want the council to choose one of them, because in my opinion, the budget shouldn't be at the disposal of the Treasurer or the Board. It should be approved, and we should have only one clear statement. For instance, that we have 1000€ for council meeting organisation - the council can pay up to that amount, and it's fine if they pay less. My second question is - I barely understand the difference between the servers in 2022 in Czechia and in Germany. Maybe I don't understand the infrastructure. Regarding the budget presentation, we have several items - for example, fixed expenses, legal, events, etc. What I would propose for the future is that the budget should be fulfilled and prepared by the Treasurer, but all these items should come from the respective “group owners”. For instance, we have the media marketing working group, and a working group for technical stuff. Each one of these groups should prepare a report to the treasurer, asking for their needs. Not only to the treasurer, but the board itself. Asking for the working groups' needs to be discussed, so that the treasurer could prepare a non-arbitrary budget based on the working groups' data.
Sebastian: It is not a provisionary budget. Secondly, it is an alternative. It is an initial budget and I have calculated an alternative as well. So, the question is the initial budget or the alternative. It would be nice if the treasurer gets a spiriti from the finance group but you stopped the meetings so we don't know what are your ideas. I do my duty here to present the budget because we need it. I don't have to fulfill this (we dont have to spend all the money). If I want to have more money as a treasurer I have to discuss it with board and so on. If you want to bind me to spend 1000€ for the conferences then that's stupid. I think to use budget is easy and we did it in the past as well. I think it is easy to understand the budget and there are two alteranatives to vote on.
Etienne: Any other questions?
Alessandro: I'd like to clarify that, on one of the last council meetings, I proposed a “finance regulation act”. The finance working group has literally no tasks, and didn't do what's up to the Treasurer. There was a lack of treasurers before when I was treasurer in 2019. We need also a regulation act to regulate, for instance, donations. I can remember a long discussion about this topic. That was the proposal of creating a finance group, I find it very unpleasant that you just said I stopped the meeting and that's it. I can also remember Etienne and some other pirates being at that meeting. Fortunately, we're all volunteers here, and I shouldn't blame anyone, including you. I can remember that the statutes ask the Treasurer to have meeting with all parties' treasurers. I tried, I contacted all the treasurers, I asked them for it because this is also an act of participation. I don't think this is a task for the finance working group, maybe the group failed to prepare a good motion. Maybe that's because no council members saw motions prepared by them. I stand by what I said before.
Cédric Levieux: I have questions about the budget. I understand Sebastian about the Council money. I understand that for you it's silly to spend that kind of money on that. I don't see here any decision for this kind of expenses. Normally, this meeting is free of charge. Like now, there is no money spent on this meeting. Why do we need for this year to spend this money? Since we can continue to do this meetings like this, we are about 30% here. Maybe, if somebody wants to do a physical meeting. We can do it like in the past and ask a participating country to organize it. That's why I don't understand this line in the budget especially since the budget is so difficult to attain. What is the reason for the 2022 Council expenses?
Sebastian: There is a difference between a budget and a balance sheet. The balance sheet describes all the expenses and incomes after they're made. The budget provides money for doing your duties and some things we need. I'd be glad if we had a member of the group who offered meetings in real life, and we paid all the costs. We don't have to spend 1000€, maybe it costs 100€ or 500€, who knows. If we have no set budget, we can't do physical meetings, since we don't have any money to. It's our duty to prepare and present a budget for the year 2022. I hope you can understand. Alessandro: Why did we collect only two fees, PPCZ & PPDE, even after lowering of the fees?
Mikuláš Peksa: It's more in the line of command, the budget itself is something like a permission from the council to the board to spend the money over the year. It's a way of telling the board that they can spend this money over a given time, and we don't have to meet again just to approve that decision. It's about how much you trust the board, and think they can spend the money wisely. Of course, this depends on the fact it's needed. We're likely not going to have to spend money on physical council meetings due to the current COVID situation. This doesn't stop us from having the opportunity of doing it in person though. We're electing the board today, and it'd be great for people who have concerns on how the money is spent to educate the board members on how to keep an eye on what is going on with the money. I don't think the money will be used unwisely, but it's good to have more people looking at the decision, and trust it was wise and reasonable. We should cooperate in the spirit of goodwill, not distrust.
Sebastian: To Alessandro, I have no idea why the other members don't pay their fees. You should ask and persuade them. Of course, to every member, I ask for their fees, just as last year. I think it is a duty to pay their fees and it's a pity not to be fulfilled.
Etienne: If I understand correctly, there is option 1 (initial budget), option 2 (plan B). Are we okay with this?
Sebastian: Yes. The inital budget is to be approved first, and then we have a second option, plan B. If nobody votes on the budget, we have a problem. But if the budget with the full expenses doesn't pass, we always have plan B. I hope it will, but if it doesn't pass, we'll vote on plan B.

Voting on motion:
Does the council approve the 2022 budget as presented in the initial proposal from the Treasurer?

Etienne: Motion is approved, no need for plan B. The next item on the agenda is the election of the chair. Any more nominations? [ No nominations. ] The only candidate is Mikuláš Peksa, so we'll follow with his short presentation. (
Mikuláš Peksa: I hope you are aware of my by now. I have been in the position since 2020. I will try to provide continuity. The idea is similar as in the previous year. Since we're not running for the European elections, it will be mostly about the administrative tasks and organization. Since we are all volunteers, it might be a challenge sometimes. The main idea is to have this organization fit financially, media-wise, and politically. We will try to get more members as well as the second chamber as discussed previously. I would like to continue in the process of including non-board members in different decisions. The same with people outside of the board getting them actively involved. We cannot do it without involvement of volunteers. We cannot avoid political decisions of the board members. I think we have done that in the last two years in a more or less balanced way covering the Pirate core positions. I don't think we have expanded from that scope. We are mostly focusing on reinforcing these positions rather than expanding further. It should be clear for each European PP that they can refer to the movement as a pan-european movement. We were pushing our topics in this way in the Parliament and in the Commission and the parties can clearly show that there are added values from this movement and their parties. I hope to follow in this way in the next year.
Etienne: Any questions or comments?
Cédric Levieux: Thank you, Mikuláš. As you can see, there is nobody against you, and I wish you success.
Mikuláš Peksa: Thank you. I'll try not to misuse the position of not being the only candidate and I'd love to have the opportunity to talk with all of you going into the future and to make sure your decisions shape the organization, not only mine.
Alessandro: First of all, I would like to thank you for the huge work you've done since your first election. It was a pleasure working with you. I saw how constantly you've been involved in all the things. It is true this is not a one-man show. You were a good leader. To have such perseverance, it's very important for the Pirate cause. You have the opportunity to spread the Pirate movement to the European parliament, that is important. I am glad you are concentrated on the European PP. It is not your fault but if an organization fails, it's everybody's fault. I would like to advice you, if elected, to think about participation. Participation… I was so proud of what we did together. I was so proud in the past, in the Milan meeting, of what we did together. It all looked very promising, but after 2 years, the participation is very low. I think it is getting even worse. Of course, it is not up to you but that is my wish that you will invert this trend.
Mikuláš Peksa: You're right. It's a big issue. Maybe it's good not to have trouble among ourselves and not shouting at each other, but the bad part is people aren't talking. We'll need to talk more, work more, and find a way to include more people in the processes. I agree there's a need for getting people more involved. I'm very happy about iniciatives like today's from PP-GR, it's a way to involve from other parties in our things. It'd be great, should we have more options and opportunities to contribute, and prove the results. I'll need to focus more on the Scandinavian parties, I've been there before, but it's been a long time. Since the meeting in Rekyjavík, I haven't been there, except for when I visited YPE meeting last year in Sweden. If I had one wish for the election, I'd like to have more vice-chairs elected, who aren't afraid to do their part of the job, and both represent and drive the organisation. What applies for the vice-chairs, should also apply to the Treasurer and others. It'd be good for everybody to participate. We have a lot of work and not many people working. We can manage it all together, there is space for everyone to be active.
Alessandro: If Mikuláš is the only candidate, I'd propose to vote [ ? ] for this election.
Mikuláš Peksa: Would you mind doing the vote properly? I think it should be everyone's opportunity to express satisfaction or dissatisfaction. Both are very legitimate, and it's good to use those opportunities to resolve problems. It should be possible for everybody to vote.
Dario: In the future, we should do a ranking style vote if there are more candidates. For Mikuláš, we should vote as usual.

Voting on motion.

Etienne: Next item, election of the vice-chair. There is only one nomination, Florie from PP-FR. Is there any other nominations? Florie apologised for not being here today for family emergency. Is there anybody from PP-FR that can speak up for her?
Cédric Levieux: I'll read her presentation for her. [ Presentation - ]

Florie Marie is a member of the French Pirate Party since 2017. As member of the party leadership since 2018, she was the head of the list for the Pirate Party during the last European election. Florie participated to the redaction of the current status of PPFR. She is currently councillor for public relations (membre du conseil des relations publiques) and vice-chair of the European Pirate Party.

Florie is a specialist in the issue of democracy (voting systems, electoral law, political landscape, etc.). As such, she regularly publishes blog articles on the website of Médiapart (online newspaper). She is regularly live on Twitch to talk about the status of other political parties or to analyse the political actualities. She draws her expertise from her professional experience (campaign manager, chief of staff). She is now working in the private sector.

Florie is committed to having political institutions that allow women and minorities to express themselves freely without having to endure remarks. Her experience with sexism in the political world has strengthened her desire to create safe political spaces and to show that anyone can get involved in politics without fear of having to hear comments about their gender, their appearance, and just being there to discuss politics.

Etienne: Thank you. Any questions?
Sebastian: Please give the mail with the approval of the candidacy as an attachment to the minutes. (OT)

Voting on motion.

Etienne: Florie is elected. For your knowledge, there is one more open vice-chair position. As announced before, as we have 2 candidates for the position of treasurer and we're over the time slot, we make the lunch break now. If there is no opposition, Mikuláš can chair the rest of the meeting for the afternoon as I and and Alessandro are nominated. Mikuláš Peksa: When to take over the meeting?
Etienne: 13:30.

[ Meeting suspended until 13:30, resuming on time. ]

Mikuláš Peksa: I see a nomination delivered for the vice-chair, concerning Alessandro Ciofini. I'd like to reopen the vote. I'd like to ask nominees to submit their applications to the wiki, and deliver their introductions.
Alessandro Ciofini: For those who don't know me, I'm 51 years old, married with 2 kids and living in Milan. I've been in the Pirate movement since 2012. I first joined PP-IT, several others, and PP-SE in 2020. I believe the Pirate movement should be strong in Europe, as well the rest of the world. I stopped trusting in other parties. I've been working as a chief technology officer. I've been dealing with managing people and IT stuff in a very international context. On a daily basis, I speak with international colleagues - that's the most lovely part of my job. I believe international cooperation helps everyone to move forward and improve without losing our beliefs and roots. It's about the balance - grow up in an international environment. I consider myself a planet Earth citizen, despite being Italian. I accepted this nomination not to fill a vacant position, but I strongly believe in participation and would like to have a completely full board, not with only a few members. Not only because we're working as volunteers, but more people also meaning different cultures and ideas. If I'm chosen as vice-chair, of course, I should no longer run for Treasurer. I want to say this - Having many people in different roles is not only a plus, it should be mandatory. You can be focused on your stuff, and even more effective in the way you're doing it. Having more people also means more participation. Here, we've experienced a lack of it, and my first goal would be to reopen [ and ensure more participation ]. As vice-chair, I'd go with or without Mikuláš around Europe and find out why we're losing participation. I've never done this before, but I consider this a priority for both the European PP and the movement.
Mikuláš Peksa: Any questions?
Matti Brandt: My question is regarding the decrease of participation. Why do you think it's happening?
vv Allesandro Ciofini: Yes, I have seen within these last 2 years in my experience as board, that there is some discomfort from some parties. We are used to reffering to abstract concepts such as “parties”, but they are made by people. We should take care of people first. The road to [hell] is paved by good intentions. I really trust everyone, but trust should be proven. We have lost communication and respect with each other. Every member should spend at least some time (if not each day) for these ocassions, in order to self-reflect and figure out what they can do better. There are also many political and geographical reasons. Mikuláš mentioned that Northern Europe is far from Southern. Europe is not federal but it still has a strong feeling of being one nation. We should listen more to each other and talk and respect each other. I saw in board meetings and chats that we have lost our way. The first thing that happened as such is that we lost people. I see no icelandic delegates. On my meeting as a delegate I saw the warmest atmosphere ever, so why are they not here? There are many “irrelevant” pirate parties in Europe, but it is our task to make them grow and not be irrelevant. I had this bad feeling and I have a plan to at least focus on one thing and really pursue it.
Mikuláš Peksa: Since there are no other nominations, let's vote.
Matti Brandt: I would like to mention that PP-FI has joined and should be active.

Voting on motion.

Alessandro: Thank you. If the pandemic situation permits, I'll travel all over Europe with or without the chair.
Mikuláš Peksa: Let's proceed to the vote for the treasurer.
Sebastian: I'll make it brief, we don't have a lot of time. As you know, I've been in the PP-EU project for a long time now, and I think it's a matter of respect for the members to apply for the board position in time. I've been organizing the technology with my team since 2013, and I also offer to look after the proper registration of our party. As you've seen yesterday, we've created a balance sheet. I would like the Pirate Parties to be a valid force in europe. I'd be glad if you want to help me. Thank you.
Mikuláš Peksa: Any questions?
Alessandro: What about the treasurer? I asked everyone, provided a full list of treasurers, and [ fee reduced to 50€ ]. Why did only only two parties pay their fee, when they had 1 year to pay? Even with small parties with literally no budget. [he said I dont know] I'd never present myself to a council meeting with this little, if not poor, result. When I was first elected in 2019 as a treasurer, I started sending emails. The last fee was [ ]. At the council meeting in 2020, they were finally able to pay. It's not only a question of following money and asking for money, it's also a question of participation. I thought maybe some parties had no treasurer and only had one representative, but it's a way to establish a connection. I want to have a continous connection with all the treasurers. I believe that this is mandatory in order to be a good treasurer. Sebastian: It's interesting that you didn't listen to my answer. You put the same question a few minutes ago. I have nothing to do with the decisions of our members, whether they pay or don't. I can send emails and ask them, and I believe I'm a good contact for our members and working groups. I did a lot of things during my last term in the office. I don't think it's a good time to begin the presidency with these accusations. I'll do my best in the future, and if we have support on the board, it'd be much easier for everyone.
Mikuláš: I hope we will all work on this issues and support each other.
Cédric Levieux: A question for both Sebastian and Alessandro, since they're both fighting. If I understand correctly, there are only 2 parties which paid their fees. I've got a problem - I know a bit about how the PP-FR works, and maybe we missed the call (maybe we missed it, I apologize if that's the case). We want to pay the fee. There is nobody to ask us to pay our fees. We'll pay, but please stop fighting. We need to find a way to pay, this is very annoying.
Mikuláš: I admit that this is annoying and I will take it take it as my responsibility as the chair as well to secure resolving it. So that the board can ensure proper financing.

Voting on motion.

Mikuláš Peksa: [ Election of the board member. ] Please present your candidacies in the order as announced on the Wiki, 7 members running.
Jan Mareš: Hopefully most of you already know me. I've been a member of the board for a year and a half, appointed during its period(?). I, sort of, jumped in and only started doing some useful stuff after I got elected for a full term at the last council. My agenda in the PP-EU is the party registration and finding new partner parties - which, I'd say, has been going fairly well. As you've seen yesterday, we've had our first success with MKKP that we didn't have to do much for. I've personally been maintaining the relationship between PP-CZ and them for a while. I'd say it's either tier 2 or tier 3 in the possible partner parties and we'd contact them during summer, but it was a nice surprise to find them joining on their own. I think there's a 50/50 chance of them getting into their national parliament. That's already one success, even though it wasn't planned this way. We've also communicated with other parties (ex. the Danish Alternativet), whose meeting I was unfortunately not able to attend, but Mikuláš said it went well and we're going to cooperate in the future. Alternativet is a party which merges green and pirate ideas. Several of its members used to be in the PP-DK. Another prospective party is the Party of Free Men in Romania, which could help us in replacing the recently resigned Romanian Pirate Party, which still exists, but have requested not to be listed as belonging under us anymore. They seem to have gone insane, their Facebook page is full of odd things, for example, Adolf Hitler quotes. Even though the [Free Men Party] may not bring that much to us, I'll still be happy about it joining. With the other parties, we either haven't contacted them yet, or they didn't show up to our planned meetings. I hope we'll be able to support more non-Pirate parties in the future, helping with our work. I've also been attempting to establish a group for policy co-ordination, but didn't get a lot of feedback in email or Mattermost. As I stated in my candidature
summary, PP-CZ is now part of the government, and this is going to be an issue. Some of its members may not support ideas of some other Pirate Parties, and we should have a forum where we can discuss this. These are my 2 main aims. I'm looking forward to a constructive board in 2022.
Mikuláš Peksa: Any questions? [ None. ]

[ Next candidate. ]

Lukáš Doležal: Hello, I'm from Brno and have been a member of the Pirate Party since 2019. I'm also a member of the PP-CZ foreign department, and have run for its 2020 regional elections, and in the chamber of deputies. We've had a rather infamous coallition with Mayors and Independentes. I've studied European studies and international relations in Czechia, and am finishing my masters in the Swedish university of Gottenburg. International relations have been present in my life for a long time. I've been a PP-EU members for a year, and have been responsible for posts on social media for campaigns of other PP and such. I prepared materials for PP-IS and PP-DE elections, and others. I'd like to thank Mikuláš for the GitLab instance, which is a very useful tool for doing that. I appreciate initiatives such as Reclaim Your Face or Freedom To Share. I find these initiatives quite interesting and useful for the Pirate movement. I like how they focus on transparency, human rights, environmental issues, etc. I like snowboarding, metal music, etc. I speak English and Russian.
Mikuláš Peksa: Any questions?
Jan Mareš: Does anyone know what happened with PP-IS? Are they still in some kind of introspective mode after their election? Do they think PP-EU isn't very relevant since they're not in the EU?
Mikuláš Peksa: [ OT. Ask later. ]

[ Next candidate. ]

Daniel Mönch: (Mysterious music).
Mikuláš Peksa: Thank you very much, any questions? They can be spoken or played on an instrument (:D)
Lukáš Dolezal: What is the meaning of this performance?
Daniel Mönch: (Mysterious music continues).
Mikuláš Peksa: Well this was you answer. Thank you for your innovative presentation, and I would like to invite Petr Kocourek nominated by the CZPP.

[ Next candidate. ]

Petr Kocourek: It's hard to beat that. I'm from PP-CZ, live half in Czechia and half in France where I work for the European Banking Authority as a statistician. Background in finances and mathematics I've spent many years in Germany and have been volunteering in the PP-EU for a while. I've been supporting Lukáš in his Social Media Working Group. I also prepared our PPEU Strategy document. I decided to run for the board position because I'd like to be part of the working project and the idea I'd like to focus on if elected would be cooperating with others [cross-border co-operation]. I'd like to develop a sort of registry where everybody could type their names and what kind of project they'd like to work on, how to do it, etc. That could be another reason for other parties to join the PP-EU. I could also play some music, but I think that's it for now.
Mikuláš Peksa: Any questions?
Petr Kocourek: Even if I don't get elected and Alessandro wants some help, I'd like to help anyway.

[ Next candidate. ]

Cédric Levieux: That was a great performance. As I said in the wiki, I'm a software architect and data manager. In the night, I'm a [ mysterious Pirate. ] I've [ run? ] in the EP election in 2019. We survive, and time to time, [Unintelligible] I'm living in a rural zone in France, where my only connection to the outside world is the Internet. I like to communicate using the Internet, and that's a great tool for democracy. I want to bring that in the PP-EU. To discuss and share things with other European Pirates. When I wrote this, I wasn't aware of Alessandro's speech. I think that every European Pirate can participate. If you want to participate in some groups, I can speak English, French and Spanish. Maybe a little Japanese.
Mikuláš Peksa: Any questions?

[ Next candidate. ]

Etienne: I've been a member of the PP-FR since 2013, I have done a lot of things and mandates. For the last 2 years I was a member of the statutary council of the PPFR and was a member of the Code of Conduct council of PPEU this year. I run for this position because I think that we have a lot of projects (create a commitee), that is why I proposed motions to help in this way. More importantly, we have a lack of real political projects. We have a program for the last EU elections, but we do not take a lot of positions. I would like to help the council to move forward on political issues and have a common position on European projects. Support MEP positions and europe in general. There are european parties, not only parties with national interest. I would like to reinforce our community and participation. I am working for the Ministry of Justice in france and have some legal background, and can thus help with the subject. Thank you very much.
Mikuláš Peksa: Thank you for co-chairing this meeting, any questions?
Sebastian: You want to shape policy but for that you need compromises, maybe you can answer in a nice manner how you can arrange compromise in politics.
Etienne: I think I can compromise but it is always difficult to stay objective. I lead several political negotioation in the PP-FR, on the strategy of the election, of the legalization of cannabis and others. These were results of many compromises. We can reach compromise but if there is a dead end, the solution is a vote. If we cannot reach an agreement on a decision, the solution is a vote. We are all attached to consensus but we can't let the attachment to stop us from having a position. Our MEPs and national elected pirates can tell us more about it. In the real politic, you need to have a positoin. You cannot say I don't have a position.

[ Next candidate. ]

Jasmin Feratovic: I am from PP-SL. We have been just slowly observing what is going on on the European level and I also thought it would be nice to actively participate. About me, I am the general secretary of the PP-SL. My skills are dealing with different burreaucracy and paper work and all the boring things nobody wants to do. I can help PP-EU with this. I can do with ease the more complicated stuff and support the rest of the board through that. I can help with making PR statements and so we could also improve the social media activity. These are the two main pillars how I could contribute. Otherwise, I've been a memember of the pirates for over 4 years. Working on the top of one of the parties gave me insides of what pirates have been covering since the inception. I think that might come handy for the work that the board would do.
Mikuláš: No question. Thank you. Daniel apparently didn't want to play music, but set the wrong sound source. He intended to have an actual speech - does everyone want to give him the opportunity to try again?
[ Yes. ]

[ Daniel Mönch. ]

Daniel: For everyone who doesn't know me yet, I've been in the Pirate movement since 2009 and became a member in 2011. Since the beginning, I've been involved in policies, communication and campaigns. I was able to provide, for example, a [ ] european program. It was based on the German one, so I had a little hand in that. After that, the Pirates in Germany became a little silent. In 2018, I ran for the board and was elected to be its political manager. I was able to cooperate with NGOs, other parties and volunteers and organise politicla protests. It's the kind of work I really like. I'm looking forward to doing something of that sort if I'm elected to be part of the PP-EU board. I think I can bring things to the table, and my experience will help the PP-EU gain more visibility.
MIkuláš Peksa: Thank you. Any questions?
Matti Brandt: I would like clarifitication on the status. Are there any limitations on the number of Board Members?
Mikuláš: The status states that it should be up to 5 Board members but the others can be elected as alternates. (Article 16.1)


Mikuláš Peksa: After this motion, there will be a CoC report and we should follow with the elections of the Code of Conduct council. So far, we have no nominations for the council so please consider running for the respective office.

[ Vote finished. ]

Mikuláš Peksa: Any objections? [ First 5 members elected. ] [ No objections. ]

[ CoC report, Q&A. ]

Marco Confalonieri: If the council has nothing against it, since there are 2 of us here, we'd like to give our prospective to this council meeting. Since we don't have an official report apart from the objective report that we thread the three private cases between pirates, and we had one general investigation going on. In light of some self-evident facts, we'd like to share some prospectives.

Etienne: The fact is that the CoC council is an important part of the party. Sometimes, it might be difficult to see its final goals. When we started, there were three of us, and [ ] left us to become a candidate in the Icelandic election. It was hard to define where we're supposed to go. This feeling was even more present when we started collecting complaints, and we got three individual reports, where people were looking for something more akin to a court, than a council. The CoC goal is not implemented enough in the Pirate culture, I think. With Marco, we asked ourselves a lot of question about our mission, and to handle them. We came to the conclusion that we should rethink how the CoC works, to be more consistent with the expectations of people - to be more effective in tackling issues linked to it. We only issued 3 reports this year, but it's very difficult and requires a lot of time. I think having only three people isn't enough if we want to be ambitious. We want the council to know that if the idea is good, to take a step back and see how we can make it better - to have a body within our organization which is able to resolve conflicts, prevent discrimination and such. We always try to research the roots of conflicts, not only that there's something wrong. Marco: I completely agree. I want to add that, the CoC council expects a certain culture to be present within the PP-EU right now. A culture where conflicts aren't “separated by a wall”. Most people expect a court where someone decides what's right and wrong, but this isn't the case with the CoC council. It has fairly little power. When conflicts arise, it's usually about deep issues between pirates. There is some work needed to be done in order to have a deep-rooted, shared culture. Currently, the CoC is not what the pirates expect.

Mikuláš Peksa: Any questions?
Etienne: I'm going to say this in a harsh way. I want you to think about this - Why is there no candidate for the CoC council? Simply because nobody cares. We've seen it during our work. Sometimes, we prefer to keep our conflict there, instead of resolving it. Sometimes, we choose the path conflict, not one of reconcilliation. Conflicts ongoing for years often have nobody who knows how they came to be. Nobody is willing to take charge of this. This shows that our organization might need to look at itself in the mirror, and say “we're built on conflict, and that's not a good thing.” We need to think about this properly, and figure out a way to reconcile and work with each other. We cannot allow for failure and disharmony and we need to think about that.

Mikuláš Peksa: As the chairperson, I think there is clearly an overestimation of what the CoC council can do. Its original intention was mediation, which requires cooperation from both sides. Representatives within the council have quite a lot of power among themselves, given by the statues. As this is an association of member parties, there is no option to suspend a delegate from a member party, even if they are problematic. Maybe what's needed is to use tools to resolve these conflicts, should the respective participants not cooperate. As this is an association of parties, and each party has its own culture, it's possible for all of us to have different expectations from each other. We need to think of the CoC council as a body to clearly state what happened wrong, and act on it. We should propose some changes for the meetings, as this seems to be a persisting problem.

Allesandro: I agree with all of you, I would suggest to make an improvement. If we dont see anything in our laws, we will never respect it. We faced out from many voices that we need some rules. Yesterday, a motion that asked for the preparation of a calendar, we should have taken care of this in the first board meeting, and make sense of all of this as it is an urgent issue. This reduces participation from every side. Instead of losing pirates (that is not a good thing), we should prepare for the next council meetings 1 or 2 motions to clarify the needs, expectations and solutions (of the statutes). We can still have both, rules that correspond to the demand more of a CoA, and a tool made by the people that enforces more supportive and inclusive collaboration. Just avoiding people and not participating is not a good thing, but if we need something like this, the board is responsible to prepare motions for all pirates involved, should not be longer than 4 months.

Marco: In the following year, we could have a working group which could tackle this. The solution isn't to set up a framework to handle the current conflict culture though, but to change it first. I'd like to have a working group, to see if we can improve the situation. We need to tackle the situation from a cultural point of view first.

Mikuláš Peksa: I agree, it is up to us to discuss and explain why some things are beyond acceptable. This process shall take place. We always see constant change (delegates, activity), and we need to work on that but we need to be award that there might be some [ list? ] of what is acceptable and not. That is why it would be useful to have an institutional tool to resolve conflict if there is no common cultural understanding of the problem. I would suggest that we add this to the next board meeting issue and tackle this issue. Are there any nominations for the CoC? [ No nominations. ] Let's consider the CoC council election finished then. We'll work within the board to provide a solution to this situation as soon as possible.

Sebastian: Maybe we could have a council meeting during spring. Until then, we should try to nominate some members for the CoC council. In the meantime, we hope there will be no problems to solve. Mikuláš Peksa: Agreed. We have the CoC set in our statues, and I believe that, should it not be fully assmebled during our next meeting, we're going to elect new members anyway. Since the election term of the CoC ends now, It's definitely going to be on the agenda.

Sebastian: New board members, please send me your contact details and basic personal information to put on our webpage.

[ Meeting closed at 15:24. ]

######################################## -Motions-

1. Motion regarding whistleblowers (lines 103-109):
For (100%): PP-AT, PP-DE, PP-FR, MEPs, PP-GR, PP-CZ, YPE, PP-CAT
Against (0%): -
Abstain (0%): -

Motion is approved.

2. Support of the nomination of Julian Assange for the Nobel Peace Prize (lines 118 - 125):
For (82.35 %): PP-GR, PP-FR, MEPs, PP-CZ, PP-DE, PP-SE, PP-AT
Against (0%): -
Abstain (17.65%): PP-CAT, YPE

Motion is approved.

3. Vote on the PPEU budget 2022 (initial proposal):
For (76.47%): PP-DE, PP-CZ, PP-GR, MEPs, YPE
Against (11.76%): PP-CAT, PP-AT
Abstain (11.76%): PP-SE, PP-FR

Motion is approved.

4. Vote on the Chair: Mikuláš Peksa:
For (82.35%): PP-CZ (6), PP-FR (1), PP-DE (2), PP-GR (1), PP-CAT (1), PP-SE (1), MEPs (2)
Against (0%):
Abstain (17.64%): PP-AT(1), YPE (2)

Mikuláš is elected.

5. Vote on the Vice-Chair. Florie Marie:
For (94.12%): PP-AT (1), PP-CZ (6), PP-FR (1), PP-DE (2), PP-GR (1), PP-SE (1), YPE (2), MEPs (2)
Against (0%): -
Abstain (5.88%): PP-CAT (1)

Florie is elected.

6. Vote on the Vice-Chair, Alessandro Ciofini:
For (100%): PP-AT (1), PP-CZ (6), PP-FI (1), PP-FR (1), PP-DE (2), PP-GR (1), PP-SL (1), PP-CAT (1), PP-SE (1), YPE (2), MEPs (2)
Against (0%): -
Abstain (0%): -

Alessandro is elected.

7. Vote on the Treasurer, Sebastian Krone:
For (77.78 %): PP-CZ (6), PP-DE (2), PP-GR (1), PP-CAT (1), YPE (2), MEPs (2)
Against (0%): -
Abstain (22.22%): PP-AT (1), PP-FR (1), PP-FI (1), PP-SE (1)

Sebastian is elected.

8. Vote on the Board Members(lines 198 - 247):

Jan Mareš:
For (82.35%): PP-CZ, PP-SE, PP-DE, PP-GR, PP-SL, PP-FR, PP-FI, PP-CAT
Abstain (17.65%): PP-AT, MEPs

Lukáš Doležal:
For (64.71%): PP-CZ, PP-AT, PP-GR, PP-SL, PP-DE
Abstain (35.29%): MEPs, PP-SE, PP-FR, PP-FI, PP-CAT

Daniel Mönch 🎵:
For (29.41%): PP-AT, PP-FR, PP-SE, PP-CAT, PP-FI
Abstain (70.59%): PP-CZ, MEPs, PP-GR, PP-SL, PP-DE

Petr Kocourek 🐈:
For (70.59%): PP-CZ, MEPs, PP-FR, PP-SL, PP-DE
Abstain (29.41%): PP-AT, PP-SE, PP-GR, PP-CAT, PP-FI

Cédric Levieux:
For (82.35%): PP-CZ, MEPs, PP-FR, PP-SE, PP-GR, PP-SL, PP-CAT, PP-FI
Abstain (17.65%): PP-AT, PP-DE

Etienne Evelin:
For (82.35%): PP-AT, PP-CZ, MEPs, PP-FR, PP-SE, PP-SL, PP-GR, PP-FI
Abstain (17.65%): PP-DE, PP-CAT

Jasmin Feratović:
For (94.74%): PP-AT, PP-CZ, MEPs, PP-SE, PP-SL, PP-GR, PP-DE, PP-CAT, PP-FI, YPE
Abstain (5.26%): PP-FR

1. Jasmin Feratovic
2 - 4. Jan Mareš, Cedric Levieux and Etienne Evelin
5. Petr Kocourek
6. Lukáš Doležal
7. Daniel Mönch

Permalink /var/www/ · Last modified: 2022/01/23 15:36 by bastian