Report of the Reporting Group on the Reform of epi “Council decides not to change its size and composition”

L.A. Durán (ES), Chair

1. Report to Council in Athens April 23, 2016

The epi Council decided on November 14, 2015 in Cologne to reduce its size and entrusted the Reporting Group to prepare and present new proposals to be considered at its next Council meeting (see report on epi Information 4/2015, pages 130-132).

Accordingly, the Reporting Group met in London (Heathrow) on January 13^th, 2016 and prepared a proposal that was sent to all Council members and substitutes on February 8^th, 2016 inviting them to send their comments.

The proposal included a protection clause that in practice meant that no country would lose or gain more than one delegate from one election to the next. Furthermore, a proposal to solve the problem of uneven number of delegates in non-unitary jurisdictions was also included. The main reasons why the Reporting Group was proposing a change in the composition of Council were the following:

1. To try to get a better balance between the principle of proportionality (more representatives in those countries who have more epi members, following the advice given by prof. Ulrich Battis in his expert opinion – see epi Information 4/2015) and representation (all Member States should be present in Council).
2. To achieve a better efficiency in the work of Council. A body with 140 members is difficult to manage. At the end, Council is elected by the epi members of their respective Member States, so, what Council members have to do is to collect the views of the members they represent and express these views at Council meetings. To do that, it is not required to have so many delegates.
3. Given the fact that travelling and hotel costs of Council meetings are reimbursed, a reduction in the size of the Council would reduce the amount of the epi budget applied to Council meetings. This freed-up of financial resources could be more efficiently dedicated towards other epi activities, like for example education.

So, in summary, the Reporting Group considered that a change in the composition of Council, as agreed by Council in its meeting in Cologne, would be desirable.

The proposal consisted in changing the current composition of the Council that is formed by 140 members calculated as follows:

to the following new composition (Proposal I):

This proposal would have reduced the composition of Council from 140 to 104 seats.

52 replies were received from Council members. The Reporting Group met again in Amsterdam (Schiphol) on February 24^th, 2016 to analyze and discuss the replies received and prepared a new report to Council members including a new proposal (Proposal II, as follows):

This proposal would reduce the composition of Council from 140 to 100 seats.

Board members were asked to collect the views of the Council members of their respective jurisdictions, in order to be able to report about their views at the Board meeting held in Tallinn on March 13^th, 2016 and to explore whether any of the two proposals would receive a sufficient support from Council in its Athens meeting. According to Article 14 of the Founding Regulation a 2/3 majority of Council membership is required to change the composition of Council.

In the light of the comments and observations of Board members a new compromise proposal was prepared by the Reporting Group (Proposal III) that would include the principle that no country would have less than two seats. This new proposal was the following:

This proposal would have reduced the composition of Council from 140 to 112, and it was presented to Council in Athens.

At the Athens Council meeting the Secretary General presented a motion so that, in case the proposal of the Reporting Group (Proposal III), would not get a sufficient support, an alternative proposal should be voted.

The proposal of the Secretary General was the following:

This proposal would have reduced the composition of Council from 140 to 116 seats.

The two proposals were put to vote. Proposal III was rejected. The result of the voting was the following:

Then the Proposal of the Secretary General was voted and, it was rejected as well, because it did not get the 2/3 majority (94 votes in favour). The result of the voting was the following:

2. Future work of the Reporting Group

In the light of the decisions adopted by Council in Athens, it has become clear that Council is not in favour, with the sufficient majority, to change its current composition. Accordingly, it makes no sense that the Reporting Group continues its work in this direction.

The proposal presented and accepted by Council was that the Reporting Group would continue to work on other ideas, like for example in proposals to adopt email Council decisions, improving the methodology of Committee work and better communication of epi work to epi members.

New proposals on those subjects will be presented to the Council at its next meeting in Berlin on November 12^th, 2016.