· EYP Academic Advisory Council, Yearly objectives 2013, as approved on 2 February 2013 AAC: Joanna Kulpa, Kerstin Mathias, Zahra Runderkamp, Julia Khurchakova, James Benge, Anastasiia

Working procedure of trial EYP Academic Advisory Council

Adopted 12 February 2013, approved by the GB 11 March 2013

The trial EYP Academic Advisory Council was set up in February 2013 following the Governance

Reform proposal of the Strategy Group in 2012. The trial AAC is set to work closely with the GB

member with the portfolio of Academic Quality. The AAC will be involved both in operational tasks

stemming from the portfolio (preparation of the next IS and assistance to the NCs in the sphere of

academic quality) as well as strategic questions on how to improve the academic quality of EYP in the

long term.

The members of the trial AAC and the GB will be invited to assess the functionality of the AAC and its

potential responsibilities by the end of its term in August 2013.

Working procedure

1. Aim

The aim of the EYP Academic Advisory Council is help EYP to reach the new era of excellence

by actively contributing to the ongoing process of increasing academic quality of EYP

experience for all its participants.

2. Formation

The trial AAC is formed by the GB member and 6 EYP Alumni chosen in an open application

process. The limit for the number of members of the Council is not binding.

3. Tasks

The tasks of the Council are largely based on the objectives within the Work Plan of the GB

member holding the portfolio, however the Council members have the chance to suggest

improvements and/or new objectives at the beginning of the term. New tasks added later

have to be approved by the GB.

4. Working procedure

The internal working procedure and the yearly objectives of the AAC have to be approved by

the GB.

4.1. Meetings

The AAC will meet on a regular basis, e.g. on Skype at least once a month.

4.2. Chair

The work of the AAC is facilitated by the GB member who will be responsible for AAC work in

front of the GB. A different chair for specific tasks and projects may be selected by the AAC.

4.3. Decision making

The AAC will perform its operational tasks (topic formulation, topic overviews assistance) under

facilitation of the GB member, who bears the ultimate responsibility for the products.

On all other matters, especially those of strategic importance to the EYP, the AAC will aim to decide

unanimously or to produce several options for consultation of the GB, BNC and/or wider community.

4.4. Accountability

The AAC shall timely publish the minutes of its meetings to the GB and BNC.

The AAC aims at being transparent, accessible and responsive to all its constituents and it recognises

that only the GB has the legitimate mandate to impose policies on EYP. The decisions taken by the

Council are not binding to the GB nor the rest of the community, they will be however

represented by the GB member who is responsible for the work of AAC.

Since the AAC has advisory nature, it is invited to produce several options and proposals when

consulted on decisions within the GB portfolio on Academic Quality.

EYP Academic Advisory Council, Yearly objectives 2013,

as approved on 2 February 2013

AAC: Joanna Kulpa, Kerstin Mathias, Zahra Runderkamp, Julia Khurchakova, James Benge,

Anastasiia Ianovytska, Richard Royal

Aims: We aim for greater academic quality:

● - academic culture in a broader sense - professionalism (e.g. including professionalism of

BNC meetings), reliability,

● - academic quality of our sessions and events: topics that delegates can debate, and that

delegates have an opinion on, topic overviews and resolutions that we produce are of top

quality - factually correct, but also in depth, presenting clear standpoint and comprehensive

approach to the problems,

● - academic quality of our chairing - chairs that are able to research before the session and

produce top quality overviews, Committee Work that is an educational experience not only

as a ‘fact finding’ exercise, but also a lesson in debating, discussion and reflection.

● - academic quality of delegates - understanding their resolution and the resolutions of the

other committees, able to prepare to the session and engage in substantive debates and

discussions,

● - academic quality of NCs - professionalism and academic culture of the NCs, applying the

best practices of the IS within the NCs to the extent possible, NCs cooperating with teachers,

experts and other stakeholders.

Yearly objectives 2013

The objectives of the Council will be to contribute to the ongoing process of enhancing the

academic quality of EYP by:

# What? When?

1 Drafting the Action Plan for the implementation of the Strategic direction for EYP development: Academic Quality, as approved by the Fontainebleau Anniversary, the BNC and the GB

February/March 2013

2 Contributing to the academic quality of IS and other events

Suggesting committee topics for International Sessions in Zurich and Tbilisi and EMYP

Preparing short explanatory paragraphs to the topics for Zurich and EMYP

Assisting with Topic Overview preparation by compiling links and sources for the Chairs at the early stage of topic preparation for IS Munich and IS Zurich

Assisting with topic formulation for events at request of NCs

On-going

3 Other, according to AAC initiative: Review of the resolution booklets and topic overviews of

the past 3-6 sessions to find recurring academic flaws and compile a short checklist for the future - Richard

Suggesting improvements to GA procedure and CAT - AAC

Reviewing the new trends in programme elements Committee Work and General Assembly – e.g. New Horizon Speeches, inter-committee review of the resolutions, etc – Anastasiia, Joanna

Creating a knowledge bank of all materials related to academic quality (Dropbox), including experts management - Zahra

Compiling delegation preparation guidelines that will be sent to the NCs before IS - Anastasiia

Creating a check list for the resolution typing – James …

On-going

4 Assessing the needs of EYP to have a permanent Academic Advisory Council.

August 2013

HRSI Council Working Procedure

The internal working procedure and the yearly objectives of the HRSI Council have to be

approved by the GB.

Internal dimension

- the Council undertakes to meet at least once a month

- the Council will be coordinated and chaired by the GB member present on the

Council

- the Chair of the Council will organise meetings, set the agenda and ensure full

commitment of all members

- three members of the Council will work in the field of Human Resources and another

three in the field of Social Inclusion

- the Council will execute the tasks laid out in the work plan of the GB member

responsible for HRSI who bears the ultimate responsibility for the results

- the Council will produce an Action Plan based on the work plan of the GB member

for its specific term yet Council members are invited to contribute additional ideas

to the Plan. The GB has to approve any additions to the Action Plan.

- the GB member may use the Council for consultancy purposes and thus the Council

is expected to offer alternative proposals on issues,

- each Council member will produce an individual report every 6-8 weeks outlining

the successes and failures of the executed tasks

- the Council recognises that it does not have a policy-making power and its task is to

perform operational and executive tasks

- the Council members will act as independent actors during their work and will not

have more power over decisions than stated above.

External dimension

- the Chair of the Council will publish the minutes as well as annexes to the GB and

the BNC and Alumni Platform within 2 weeks after the meeting

- all public statements will be issued only by the Chair of the Council

- the National Committees and Alumni are welcome to contact the Council either at

[email protected] or by contacting individual Council members relevant to the

issue at hand

mailto:[email protected]

Action plan of 2013

Aims:

- to establish a successful working procedure and ensure efficient and clear

communication between the GB, the Council, the National Committees and the

Alumni

- to establish strong basis for the work of the next Council and initiate the

implementation of all the objectives laid out in the GB member’s Work Plan

- to create structures and routined procedures for individual communication with

every single National Committee with regards to their Human Resources and

Inclusion

- to be accountable to every single stakeholder – the GB, the BNC, the National

Committees and Alumni by regular updates, easily accessible minutes, mid-term

report and individual reports

- to remain open towards suggestions regarding Council’s work from other

stakeholders and to encourage criticism of its work.

Objectives:

a. gather the practices carried out by some National Committees that prepare and

coach future officials in order to increase the general level of quality and

competency of session officials as well as tackle the issue of regional imbalance,

b. establish a system that would serve as a guideline for National Committees in terms

of their ‘production’ of officials in order to benchmark and coordinate the human

resource practices among NCs and ensure a balanced flow of applicants from all

regions.

c. carry out an evaluation to identify the current state of inclusiveness within EYP in

order to understand the present reality and establish basis for fostering inclusivity,

d. gather the best practices carried out by some National Committees in terms of

inclusion to provide immediate suggestions on expanding the outreach,

e. create a systemic guide that would assist NCs in their efforts to involve more young

people in their activities,

f. work on urgent or present policy needs by consulting the respective stakeholders

and producing policy proposals for the GB

g. investigate the opportunities of establishing partnerships with other organisations –

national and international - that deal with the specific socio-economic group in

order to effectively facilitate the gradual inclusion of marginalised young people,

h. Coordinate the organisation of a project that would entail a training and a follow-up

session for participants with a physical disability.

Actions:

a. Human Resources – coaching practices and benchmarking

# WHAT? – Action WHEN? - timing WHO? - responsible

1 Gather practices on coaching delegates & officials for EYP events

One National Committee a week

Schima / Jan

2 Identify NC structures, portfolios & HR responsible

One National Committee a week

Schima / Jan

3 Promotion of calls – compilation & comparison especially International Sessions

1st of April Schima / Andris

4 Ask input from National Committees on their Human Resources to identify issues in HR development

On-going Schima / Jan

5 Benchmark and provide best HR practices to National Committees

1st of August Schima / Jan

6

b. Social Inclusion – overall state of inclusivity and best practices


1 Identify and define the different socio-economic groups

24th of March Ezgi

2 Find out and assess the current means of acquiring and structuring data related to inclusivity

24th of March Krzysztof

3 Create a structured and simple questionnaire for every National Committee to fill in

14th of April Krzysztof

4 Work with every National Committee to fill in the precise data needed

16th of June Krzysztof/Ezgi

5 Categorise the best outreach practices that 16th of August Ezgi

can be of immediate value to NCs

6 Compile, structure and analyse all the data received from National Committees to arrive at the overall state of inclusiveness in EYP

16th of August Krzysztof

c. Urgent policy proposals


1 Selection criteria for vice-presidents 14th of April Maria

2 Selection procedure for Presidents 1st of May Maria/Andris

3 Proposal on definition of regional balance 14th of April Maria

4 Updating the application form for chairs 14th of April Maria

5 Analysis of the recommendation database 1st of April Maria/Andris

6 Evaluation of evaluation forms 1st of April Maria/Andris

d. A training and a follow-up session for participants with a physical disability


1 Draft a presentation of the project 21st of March Maria/Andris

2 Present the project to the Council for suggestions and comments

31st of March Maria

3 Launch a call for interested National Committees in organising the project

14th of April Maria

4 Coordinate the organisation and assist the NOC throughout the process

On-going Andris/Maria

5

6

CAT for IS Munich (22-24 Feb 2013)

GB VIII report on CAT evaluations, 28 February 2013

The GB member present at CAT: Joanna Kulpa

Trainer for CAT: Maria Manolescu

Board: Federico Fasol (P), Monika Seidel (VP), Vivek Gathani (VP), Stamos Tahas (VP)

The CAT followed the revised guidelines for CAT, as proposed by Robert Torvelainen (GB).

Programme elements The Board and the trainer arrived to the training already on Thursday evening, allowing for first set

of teambuilding activities and detailed planning of the training, facilitated by the Trainer.

Friday 22 Feb 2013 Morning Teambuilding of the leadership team Trainer

(board + Head Organiser + editor)

Board decided on objectives and key messages for CAT

14:00-16:00 Teambuilding Trainer, Board

16:30-17:30 Munich2013 Presentation of the session Head Organiser

17:30-18:30 Teambuilding: Role definition, problem solving Trainer, Board

18:30-19:30 Dinner

20:30-23:00 Socialising: EYP/EU Pub Quiz Board

Saturday 23 Feb 2013 09:15-10:15 Module: Why are we here? Trainer, President

10:15-12:30 EU seminar, Application to chairing GB

Training on NAOMMIE for VPs Trainer

12:30-13:00 Presentation of the Media concept Editor

13:00-14:00 Lunch

14:15-15:15 Module: Topic overview – critical analysis GB

15:15-16:10 Individual topic presentation (3 minutes per chair) Chairsteam, President, GB

16:10-17:00 Presentation of the Resource Village (RV) Head Organiser

17:00-18:00 Topic overview feedback in groups Board, GB

raining for HO and editor: selection, vision and Trainer

approach for my team

18:00-19:15 Module: Who am I as a chair? Vice-Presidents

19:15-19:30 Wrap-up Vice-Presidents

20:00-24:00 Dinner and free time in the Centre of Munich

Sunday 24 Feb 2013 09.00-10.00 Responsibilities of the chairs, GB and President

Alcohol, Golden Rule, Child Protection Policy GB

10.00-11:00 Academic quality: Position Papers and Fact Sheets GB

11:00-11:30 Module: Three teams one task President

11:30-12:00 Wrap-up: from CAT to IS President

12:00-… Evaluations and Lunch

Evaluation and learning points1 1. How well did you think CAT was organised (e.g. venues, accommodation,

transport)?

1 2 3 4 X4 5 X12

Comments:

Generally at very high quality / Accomodation, transport, food = all good

good to see Munich and prepare to the session

I liked the hostel, food is good./ great hostel, bar, evening venue / hostel is just amazing

everything was planned and well prepared (x2)/ Very well, everything went smoothly, relaxed

atmosphere, exactly what I expected

worth public transport

It would have been cool to see more of Munich or venues

The dinner place was a little expensive

2. How well did you think the programme was elaborated (e.g. structure,

sequencing, flow, time allocation)?

1 2 3 X4 4 X11 5 X1

Comments:

Well set-out, we were aware of what our schedule was which helped. Varied but we also knew

the goals of different modules / programme was well structured and the flow of modules made

sense

I feel CAT lacked a clearly communicated aim (NAOMMIE)

The preparation was amazing

Info about the programme was on the very last minute, but everything else was very well

planned

More breaks would have been useful

Structure wise very good, execution of time management could be improved

Longer EU module:

I would prolong or shorten certain modules, for instance I would prolong the EU module

Although it was perfectly planned, clear agenda and schedule, I had a feeling hat we spent too

little time on important aspects (EU module, discussing TOs in groups)

I think the academic aspect should have been prioritised over the more refletive side of

chairing

3. How well did you think CAT was facilitated and run (e.g. moderation,

wrapping-up)?

1 2 3 X4 4 X7 5 X5

Comments:

- Quite well-organised and structurally sound /

- Full professionalism of the trainer team, balanced modules

- Everything was clear, enough space for us to make comments

- All was done in really interesting and easy way. The modules are really comprehensive and

were delivered in easy to understand way. / Lots of explanations, step by step, movement

- I think debriefing should have lasted more on activities that mattered most to the essence

of CAT/ I felt some modules sort of just ended and were not wrapped up

- Time keeping wasn’t great: part of that was because of people coming later, but too many

modules overran

- Some discussions needed more moderation as they were out of topic (e.g. sponsors talk)

- A little bit too ‘emotional for me’ – more concrete thought would be useful for CAT pre-

session planning

1 For the sake of this report the personal feedback to individual persons that lead modules is left out.

II. PROGRAMME ELEMENTS (1 – , 3 - , 5 - )

Please share with us your opinion by marking on each line X & O

X = the quality of the module at CAT – left out for this report

O = importance of the module for CAT – indicated in this report

Numerical Evaluation 1 2 3 4 5

Friday

Teambuilding X2 X5 X9

Session Presentation X2 X6 X8

Evening Socialising X2 X1 X9 X4

Saturday

Why are we here? (No answer: 1) X1 X6 X4 X4

EU module X4 X12

Topic overview module X5 X11

Media concept X1 X3 X7 X5

Topic presentations X5 X7 X4

Resource Village presentation X1 X1 X9 X5

Topic discussion in groups X1 X3 X12

Who am I as a chair? X1 X4 X8 X3

Evening programme X1 X4 X4 X7

Sunday

Responsibilities of a Chair X1 X1 X3 X4 X7

Academic preparation – position papers and fact

sheets

X8 X8

“Three Tasks, One Team” X2 X5 X9

OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF CAT (No answer: 4) X6 X6

Comments:

- I have learnt quite much in many different ways on a personal level. Some modules ended

in too blunt way making it hard to process the information in retrospect

- Thank you for everything. CAT helped me a lot to realise some things that are really

important to me. All the modules were really useful and practical

- Very good however I believe it could have been more intensive altogether. A greater

emphasis could have been put on the difference of IS chairing from chairing at other

sessions.

- During responsibilities I felt we overanalysed, assumed no common sense of chair /

Responsibilities of a chair: I felt most of the discussed things are common sense, you do

them naturally. I would shorten this module

- I am against the idea of Resource Village (gave 1). CAT didn’t leave the feeling of I am a

part of something very special.

- Three tasks one team – That’s discussed in every session. It is important but might be

done quicker.

- Add to the CAT’s plan a bit of TB/CW module in order to give chairs tools to start

session’s planning before coming to Munich in April

- I would have appreciated teambuilding in smaller groups because we are such a big team

- Loved ‘Who am I as a chair’ and the hofbrauhaus-something which felt local

Topic presentations / Academic

- topic presentations were too short, it is not possible to understand everything in 3 min

- maybe have topic discussion module before topic presentations. As some chairs haven’t

fully understood their topic and the overview model had clarified and helped a lot.

- Topics presentation – a bit short and smashed + discussion in groups was also short. Too

short I would say as this tends to be the most challenging, I would have wanted to work

more on mine

- I thought I would have less academic doubts after CAT but I feel less sure about my ability

in that sense

- This being my first CAT I didn’t know what to expect and might thus have had unrealistic

expectations. However having chaired several times, having attended several trainings and

T4ET I didn’t think I learnt much at CAT aside from the EU module that wasn’t already

familiar with. I especially missed an opportunity to get to know the rest of the team

professionally, to see how competent people are and what their visions are when tested

rather than just saying stuff in 30 seconds before the next person does the same.

III. THE FUTURE

1. What are your three most important take-aways of this week-end?

- A feel for the session

- Rethinking your own role as a part of CJO team

- Clearer idea of how I can get where I need to get before the session

Chairing

- More confidence in all spheres of chairing (x3)

- Many perspectives on things I hadn’t thought about before

- Having others’ experiences from IS

- Some new activities to do with the delis

- Importance of flow

- FIRO B with Maria was interesting

Personal growth

- There is always more to learn

- Importance of why, an aim (x3) / Concentrating on true goals /

- Have to find my social approach

- Interact with the people I didn’t know before

- Respect people’s weaknesses with regards to things I consider less important

Academic (75% of all the chairs mentioned the academic aspect as one of the top 3 learning

points)

- Overview writing

- EU basics / EU functioning / Information background / Recap of EU knowledge and

institutions/info on EU stuff/ more profound knowledge of the EU and institutions

- Understanding the EU in the context of our topic is key to a good quality, grounded in

reality resolution

- Prepare well / Prepare, be aware

- Academic quality / academic knowledge

- The importance of our own preparation as chairs for the quality of our CW and ultimately

our committee’s resolution

- Clear understanding of some topic aspects

Team

- Getting to know everyone (x4) / Building relationships

- I am very comfortable in the team

- We’re all very similar, on the same page, yet personally diff.

- We have support. / I know who of the team to turn to for questions or help/ Knowing that

I can rely on team (x2)

2. What areas of improvement are there for CAT in your view?

- Clearer vision of why exactly we’re doing this, what is the added value

- We could have potentially spent more time discussing the main theme of the session and

how we as chairs team can bring it to life creatively during the session

TB vs academic balance (unclear)

- Balance on working on topics and TB. There could have been more time concerning the

topics

- maybe take TB a bit “deeper” / More time for TB

- making it more academic since there is a reasonable time before the session to assess the

new knowledge / More academia – teaching and so on

- although I love the usual chairs trainings, I was hoping for some more of an academic

input.

- information about other chairs’ topics / Making the module about topic overviews in groups

longer, involve other people from the group into discussing TOs as well

Other

- Facilitating discovering something unusual about every member – get to know.

- I love talking in smaller groups/ working in smaller groups has great potential

- Modules on process innovation for CW and academic assurance

- Interaction in modules with input from each participant

Conclusion The evaluation shows that the participants were very satisfied with the CAT, its organisation,

programme and facilitation. CAT helped to achieve the objectives for the academic preparation,

setting the atmosphere and anticipation for the session and team formation.

The involvement of an external trainer proved very successful – it allowed the Board to interact

with the team more intensely and for the GB member to concentrate on its responsibilities within

her modules (Academic and topic modules, chairs responsibilities). The trainer also provided

modules for Media editor and the Head Organiser. Inviting a qualified EYP Academy trainer to the

next CATs is welcomed by the GB.

As for the learning points for the next CATs:

Setting a NAOMMIE for the entire CAT (not only needs but also: aim, objectives,

methodology, methods, implementation, evaluation),

careful balance of academic / teambuilding and chairing modules and

careful balance of modules in large group and smaller groups

is recommended.

***

If you have questions or comments concerning this report, please contact GB Member:

Joanna Kulpa at [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]

The European Youth Parliament March 10th 2013

European Youth Parliament, Sophienstraße 28-29, 10178 Berlin, Germany. Tel.: +49 (0)30 97 00 50 95 Fax::+49 (0)30 280 95 150

Updated CAT Concept

Key principles for the Chairs’ Academic Training (CAT)

I. Background The main aim of the CAT is to prepare chairs academically for EYP international sessions. The concept was originally developed in 2006 and first trialed at Potsdam’07. II. Rationale The starting point of the CAT is that chairpersons need to be prepared for the topics that their committees will discuss. Also the training aims to provide the chairs tools to facilitate their delegates’ preparation. Considering that the high expectations towards the IS chairs and the significant amount of resources invested in the weekend, the training should also provide participants with knowledge that can be used also outside of the specific context of the upcoming International Session. III. Relation to chairs’ training before the start of the session The CAT – held about two months prior to the session – aims to prepare chairs for the content of committee work, while the chair’s technique training – held a day before the start of the session – aims to prepare chairs for the process of committee work. It is the responsibility of the GB to ensure that there is a link between the two trainings. Presidents are advised to have an initial plan for the presession training already before the CAT. Thus, this plan can then be amended based on the experiences gained from the CAT. IV. Timing The CAT should be held at least six (6) weeks prior to the session.

• For the spring session (March/April), it should be held in January/February, • For the summer session (July/August), it should be held in April/May, • For the autumn session (October/November), it should be held in August/September.

The dates for the CAT are decided by the GB following the selection of a session president and in consultation with him or her. They are included in the call for chairs and editors.


V. Participation Participation in the CAT is compulsory for all chairs and editors as one of their fundamental responsibilities. In addition to the chairs and editors, a GB representative and the head organiser of the session participate during the event. At least one external trainer/speaker is recommended. The dates of the CAT are not only included in the call for chairs, but it is also made clear that participation in the full duration of both the CAT and the session are required. Following the decision by the selection panel and the issuing of invitations, the inclusion in the team is conditional upon participation in the CAT. If a chairperson cannot take part the full duration of the training (i.e. arrival at latest on Friday evening and departure at earliest on Sunday at noon), he or she will be immediately replaced A deadline of about two weeks following the invitation should be set by the EYP office for chairpersons to book flight tickets. If a chairperson has to cancel the participation after having booked tickets, no costs will be reimbursed. NB: A chairperson is bound to take part in the follow-up of the CAT even if he or she has been hindered of taking part in the CAT. VII. Planning The CAT is planned by:

1. the Session President, assisted by his or her Vice-Presidents 2. the GB 3. the EYP office

The Session President has the overall responsibility for planning the training. The GB member is responsible for informing the session president of his or her responsibilities, including planning the event and drafting a programme. A draft programme should be submitted two weeks in advance to the GB and a final version circulated to the chairpersons at least one week prior to the training. Planning the CAT is based on two things:

1. Basic structure outlined in this document 2. NAOMMIE1 methodology

Essentially, following NAOMMIE means that there will be a Needs-analysis conducted for the chairs team prior to CAT. It also requires defining Aim and Objectives of the training. This is relevant also based on the feedback from previous CATs. As many of the participants of the CAT are both experienced EYPers and have already taken part in the training before, it is good to take into account their individual needs, wishes and expectations. A template questionnaire will be available to help in conducting the analysis.

1 NAOMMIE stands for Needs, Aim, Objectives, Methodology, Methods, Implementation, Evaluation.


Planning of the CAT should be understood as to include: 1. Preparation to CAT (Needs-analysis, topic discussions etc) 2. Programme of CAT 3. Link to presession training

VIII. Preparation for CAT New additions to the CAT concept are the Needs-analysis (detailed above) and topic discussions. There should be topic discussions among the chairs (possibly in ‘buddy groups’) already before the CAT. This spreads the preparation time, helps with topic overviews and also frees time at the actual training weekend. It is recommended that chairs prepare draft topic overviews before the CAT. With draft topic overviews already done before the CAT, topic discussions and other modules can also focus on more tangible ideas and the chairs get feedback for their drafts. IX. Programme The programme is elaborated by the Session President and the GB representative together. It includes a number of compulsory modules listed below. However, there is also room for other modules. See also annex 1 for a sample programme. Introduction to the CAT (Friday afternoon) The first module of the weekend should be about the training itself. Main focus is on the aims of the weekend. Practicalities etc can also be discussed, but generally the introduction should not be too long. GB member is responsible. Icebreaking (Friday afternoon) While time of the CAT should not be used for teambuilding, some icebreaking at the beginning of the training contribute to a better working environment. If more teambuilding is needed, there is time for this during the evenings. It is planned by the President and the Vice-Presidents. Session presentation (no fixed time) As the head organiser of the session(s) participates in the CAT, it means an opportunity for him or her to present the session to the chairs and editors. The aim is to make chairs familiarised with what kind of session that the organisers envision and what the concept is behind the session. To be addressed are aspects such as aims and objectives, programme, session theme and organisational matters. It also provides an opportunity for the chairs to ask questions to the organisers regarding various aspects as well as for the chairs to convey specific wishes and requests. Session head organiser(s) is/are responsible for planning. Workshop on the EU’s functioning (Saturday morning) Aim is to make chairs aware of the basic EU structure, politics and decision- making process. The workshop should be as closely linked to EYP sessions as possible, thus being useful for Chairs during Committee Work. A lecture-type of setting should be avoided.


The workshop can be run either by an external expert or by an EYP alumnus with knowledge of the EU. GB member is responsible for this module. Topic presentations and discussions (Saturday) The aim is to make chairs feel more confident and informed about the topic that they are to be chairing. Prior to the training, each chair will be asked to prepare a presentation on their own topic. A proforma outlining in bullet forms the current state of debate, which the key actors are and their positions etc. should be circulated to all other chairs a few days before the CAT is held. Also, there should proper discussions (Skype, GoogleDocs etc) in smaller groups about the respective topics. As an aim, the chairs should also prepare their draft overviews before the weekend. In this module, chairs are divided into smaller groups in function of the topics. Each group is facilitated by one of the board members (or a senior chair). In the groups, each chair gives a brief overview of the topic, whereupon the others give feedback and a discussion follows. Approximately 20-30 minutes should be devoted per topic. If time permits, there can be an additional plenary where each group presents some key findings, thus further sharing information with each other. Each chair will use the feedback and the discussions from the module to revise and update their outline and transform it into a topic overview to be included in the preparation kit for delegates. The Board is responsible for this module. Needs-based modules (Saturday/Sunday) Module(s) based on the Needs-analysis aim to provide the participants training on the key issues they themselves have felt relevant. For these modules it is possible to divide the chairs team into smaller groups. The Board is responsible for this module, The GB member taking part in the CAT can assist in this module. Delegate preparation (Saturday/Sunday) Position Papers and Fact Sheets were first trialled at previous International Sessions. For positition papers the delegates prepare their opinion on the topic already before the session. Fact sheets include 10 referenced facts/figures about their topics. Their use should be covered in the CAT. Additionally, both NCOs and Chairs teams are encouraged to come up with new initiatives to facilitate delegate preparation. Either the Board or the Head organiser(s) are responsible. Chairs’ responsibilities (Sunday) The responsibilities include training on the feedback system, recommendations, GA procedure and general responsibilities related to the safety and well-being of delegates during the session. President is responsible. The GB member taking part in the CAT assists in this module. Debriefing and evaluation (Sunday afternoon) The objectives are:

1. to evaluate the training and identify lessons learnt and points for improvement, 2. to permit chairs to reflect on what they have learnt,


3. to enable the chairs to have a clear vision of what objectives and aims they have for the session.

As regards the evaluation, a specific evaluation form prepared by the EYP office will be circulated and filled in. For this last session, there are other ways how to end the event, such as elaborating a mission statement, doing a hopes and fears, identifying personal challenges etc. The Board is responsible for this module. The GB representative participates and takes notes as regards to the evaluation aspect. Ideas for new modules Training for the Board (Saturday/Sunday) There are different slots, especially the EU module during which it would be possible for the Session Board to have a training module for themselves. This module could deal with facilitating chairs academic work, session leadership etc based on the needs. Recognising different kinds of topics ((Saturday/Sunday)) Currently, big chunk of the training is spent discussing the Committee Topics. Whilst this is good for understanding the topic better, there is little reason to both spend so much time on it and also at the CAT (prior discussions on topics prior the trainng). There could be module about topics with a universal approach, recognising different kinds of topics (yes/no, moral, technical, etc) and how to deal with these different types. In this way the benefits of the CAT would carry on, instead of only diving into specific topics. Editors During Saturday afternoon, when the chairs are in discussion groups, the editors have a separate module. Examples of issues addressed here are:

• the aim and objectives of the newspaper • the role and responsibilities of the press team and the editors • the balance between entertainment and academic quality • the practical and technical aspects

Participating in parts of this module are a board member, the head organiser and the GB representative. Delegate evaluation Going through the delegate evaluation forms and rationale behind the evaluation system. This can be also done at the presession training prior to the IS. Ideas for new practices

External trainer Each the CAT should feature external trainer. This would make it possible for the board and president to be trained as well. Potentially the trainer could/should come outside of EYP, with


the aim of bringing new techniques, games etc to the IS Chairs Teams (from which these could then spread to rest of EYP). Experts Linked with prior preparation, it should be fairly easy to connect the chairs and experts coming to the session before the CAT. A Skype discussion, video introduction etc would enable the chairs to benefit from experts early on. Experts could also be invited to take part in the CAT, though their availability might be limited during weekend. Institutional visits Tallinn’12 CAT was organised in Brussels, which meant that the EU institutions and MEPs were easy to access.


Annex I Timeframe of CAT (incl. breaks) Friday: 7h (from 12am to 7pm ) Saturday: 10h (from 9am to 7pm) Sunday: 6h (from 9am to 3pm) = roughly 23h of working time, including breaks and lunches. Outside the time frame are breakfasts and dinners + evening programmes. GB (2-4h): Introduction to the CAT (less than 1h) - Aim of the weekend, practicalities Chairs' responsibilities (1-2h) - Policies, feedback & recommendations Evaluation (1-2h, together with Board) External experts (0-8h): EU training (1-2h) - functioning of the EU, institutions and their roles Session topics (1-6h) - relevance, interconnections, current state of affairs / point of views - chance to discuss own topic with expert? Board, Editors and Head Organisers (12-21h): - Teambuilding (2-4h) - Energisers (1-2h) - Topic Discussions / Presentations (4-6h) - Needs-based modules (2-4h) - Delegate preparation (1-2h) - Editors & HOs (2-3h) + planning dinner & evening programme + possible chairs & organisers teambuilding


Annex II Sample programme Below is a sample programme with some indications and ideas. However, each programme will be individual, as they are based on the Needs-analysis. Friday Morning Arrivals Afternoon Introduction (approx. ½ hr) Icebreaking (approx. 2 hrs) Session presentation (approx. 1 hr) Evening Social activity incl. dinner Saturday Morning EU workshop (approx. 2 hrs) Delegate preparation (approx. 2 hrs) Afternoon Topic discussions (approx. 4 hrs) Needs-based modules (approx. 1 hr) Evening Social activity incl. dinner Sunday Morning Needs-based modules (approx. 1 hr) Chairs’ responsibilities (approx. 2 hrs) Afternoon Debriefing, reflection and evaluation (approx. 1 hr) Departures

Documents

· EYP Academic Advisory Council, Yearly objectives 2013, as approved on 2 February 2013 AAC: Joanna Kulpa, Kerstin Mathias, Zahra Runderkamp, Julia Khurchakova, James Benge, Anastasiia