Une réunion au Consulat aura lieu le 29/01 avec le président de la FAPEE, Francois Normant. Des représentants du LFI seront présents ainsi que nos conseillers consulaires.
Si vous souhaitez poser des questions à la FAPEE, n’hésitez pas à les mettre sur notre blog et nous les transmettrons aux représentants élus des français de l’ étranger
Nous vous remercions de votre confiance
Cordialement
LFI Action
Reprise du post d’Alexandre sur FIS HK Parents, Teachers and Alumni
Le Board ou la direction exécutive du LFI vient de publier la première édition d’une « Newsletter Transition ». Six mois après l’assemblée générale qui a lancé le passage au partenariat, il était temps.Cette communication est censée répondre aux questions et inquiétudes de nombreux parents concernant la capacité du Board à respecter les promesses faites lors de la campagne pour le déconventionnement. Rappelez-vous:
Qu’avons-nous appris grâce à cette newsletter ? Rien de très précis sur les grands sujets.Le Board souhaite réconcilier la communauté du LFI. Mais on ne sait pas très bien comment. Ce n’est en tout cas pas en la rencontrant puisqu’aucune réunion d’information ne semble prévue à court terme malgré les appels de plusieurs parents en ce sens. On nous annonce une prochaine newsletter d’ici la fin de l’année.
Le travail d’adaptation de l’organisation est en cours. Heureusement ! Cela fait 6 mois que la décision a été prise, mais nous ne savons rien de l’avancement de ce travail, des pistes envisagées ou des principes guidant la future organisation.
Les recrutements de la nouvelle équipe pédagogique sont en cours.
Combien de professeurs ont d’ores et déjà décidé de quitter le LFI ?
Combien ont reçu une offre de nouveau contrat ? Combien l’ont accepté ? Combien l’ont refusé ?
Combien doivent encore répondre ? On comprend que le recrutement du Chef d’établissement va prendre du temps et ne sera pas effectif avant la rentrée 2021.
Tout va bien et M Gabet assurera l’interim. Qu’en est-il des autres postes d’encadrement pédagogique tout aussi stratégiques et qui seront vacants au 1er septembre prochain ? Notamment pour l’encadrement des classes de Lycée, ou M Gabet n’a pas d’expérience ?
Le board travaille au prochain budget. Mais aucune information sur l’exercice en cours dans le contexte actuel de Hong Kong. Aucun message rassurant concernant le départ du directeur financier en Aout, suivi de la démission du Trésorier. Tous deux nous avaient présenté les analyses « isocoûts ». Ces analyses sont-elles confirmées par la nouvelle équipe ?
On notera en passant qu’en ajoutant le départ de Clement Brunet-Moret, cela fait maintenant trois membres du Board, chacun à leur manière acteur majeur de la campagne en faveur du déconventionnement qui auront quitté leur poste en 6 mois. L’objectif était de stabiliser le conseil d’administration ?
Beaucoup de questions restent donc sans réponses. Cependant, nous avons aussi appris quelques éléments intéressants.
Tout d’abord, M Tran et son équipe travaillent à l’organisation de la rentrée 2020.L’homologation du LFI n’a été renouvelée que pour deux ans. Il faudra passer une nouvelle inspection en 2020 / 2021. Il nous avait été annoncé que l’homologation n’était absolument pas remise en cause par le déconventionnement. Pourtant, il faudra passer un nouvel audit dès la première rentrée scolaire préparée sous partenariat.« L’élaboration du projet d’établissement est un enjeu majeur pour le LFI ».
C’est exactement ce que nous disions au cours de la campagne du printemps dernier et insistions pour commencer par ce travail en rassemblant la communauté autour d’un projet avant de décider de la relation avec l’AEFE. Il est rassurant de voir que le sujet devient maintenant une priorité le Board, mais où trouverons-nous le temps et les ressources pour développer ce projet en même temps que l’on met en place la nouvelle organisation et que l’on recrute entre 20 et 50 enseignants et personnels d’encadrement éducatif ? Des consultants et autres cabinets spécialisés peut-être ?
A ce sujet il est intéressant de relever ce qui n’est, espérons-le, qu’une coquille : la sélection du cabinet se fera « via une procédure classique d’appel d’offre ». Sans s. La procédure classique est d’appeler plusieurs offres et de choisir après, à moins que le choix ne soit déjà fait ? Rappelons à ce sujet que les appels d’offre (avec ou sans s ?) du mois de Juin sont restés confidentiels et que les parents qui ont demandé à pouvoir les consulter n’y ont pas eu accès.
Alors, pouvons-nous être rassurés par cette première newsletter ?
En attendant les résultats détaillés des votes de l’AG(*), ci-joint un message du groupe FaceBook: FIS HK Parents, Teachers and Alumni.
Message:
Ce groupe est dédié à la communication entre parents, professeurs et anciens du LFI Hong Kong. Promouvant la diversité de perspective et sans parti pris, cet espace est le votre pour exprimer vos opinions, partager des conseils, faire la promotion d’événements du LFI ou échanger des informations pédagogiques.
Ce lien vous permettra d’y accéder: https://m.facebook.com/groups/184808275770325
Good afternoon,
This group is whole community of the French international school of HK.
If you wish to join, here is the link.
https://m.facebook.com/groups/184808275770325
Thank you
(*) Plus précisément, pour chaque résolution, y compris celles de la page du recto concernant les candidats au CA et les budgets, nous attendons les statistiques suivantes:
Find below our questions sent to the members of the board at the AGM on 23 May.
As per company ordinance, any shareholder attending a General Meeting can seek information pertinent to the subject matter of the resolution before the resolution is put to a vote, to enable him to decide how to vote. Shouldn’t the debate on the present topics be done with the questions from the audience before nominating any new Director or voting budget?
You have taken a commitment of 7 Million of consulting with Turenne consulting. Is it a binding commitment imposed to the next Board members?
Was Turenne selected under a proper FIS procurement process? and follows HK laws? Was Turenne compared to other competitors? And has some experience working for our size of school?
Don’t you think that these kind of mistake does not show how you are going to manage such big project without external costly consultants while you were complaining about AEFE costs?
Are Board members or ex-Board members going to be in the transition team or in the administration positions to be freed by AEFE staff as of Sept 2020?
How do we have the guarantee there is no conflict of interest while you have employed some parents and their company in preparing the consultation and campaign?
The Board has spent more than 600,000 HKD of FIS money to hire consultants while it was not in the budget, so the FIS staff had to make savings on the school expenses. If the Board has full power to decide to spend our money, without following EDB guidelines (Up to 50K without written quote), I am asking the Board why they gave us underestimated cost of the Webinar (64K in Q&A Webinar 1) while the real figures are 171K?
In your presentation pack to parents, there is no 5-years budget while it is requested by the by-laws? The only budget provided is the one for 2019-2020 when the FIS is still under convention with AEFE. There is no budget for the 1st year of partnership (2020-2021) and beyond where we can see evolution of school fees in 1st year of partnership and in normal budget run. Why we cannot have a visibility of how the school fees will evolve for both streams?
What is your method qualifying that transition is at iso-cost since your educational costs increase by 6.4% and your pedagogical costs increase by 4%. We saw the Turenne support fees, but did not see the other transition fees (recruitment fees, higher salary…), can you let us know where you put these costs in the budget?
You said that the transition fees will not impact the school fees but will be taken on the FIS capital & debentures. What is the current reserve ratio of the FIS? What will be your policy to recover the FIS capital? and for future debentures and how it is going to impact us?
In your meeting with PR on 19 January 2019, you mentioned that you have identified someone to be a temporary headmaster during the transition and mentioned afterwards the example of Mr. Gabet headmaster of CFBL who worked with Turenne in the transition to partnership for CFBL. This same person came to HK with some travel cost of 61K, met some people from the school administration, but we do not know the reason of his venue. Can you tell us the content of his letter of engagement, the findings of his mission report and provide us explanation on the level of expenses for him?
What do you answer to parents who get to know that about 35 teachers and 8 staff administration of the school may leave while under partnership? It would be the highest level of departure in history of FIS while we are paying resident teachers cheaper than local teachers, so how are you going to manage such level of recruitments?
Since most of the resident teachers at in the exam class, don’t you think this will create unexpected and unnecessary turbulences for the children’s passing exam?
What are the control mechanisms & code of conduct you have to put in place in order to avoid situation where the Board can denigrate a group of parents publicly with FIS means and a Board director send a message only to International Stream to ask them to choose his preferred solution?
The KPMG audit of 2017 (page 4), stated that a main risk for the FIS is the change of relationship with the AEFE. Why this has been removed from 2018 one? Did the conditions changed between 2017 and 2018?
You did not follow the By-laws and interviewed the candidates to Board’s vacant position in order to do a proper due diligence? And modified the list of candidates to Director and PR after the deadline of 17 May 2019? How come you do not know these rules as Board members?
The Board and its bureau are not following the By-Laws regarding its composition. How come you have not noticed that you have been in breach of the law?
I understand that the staff under the authority of the Board has a much higher resignation / turnover rate (70 departures for past 18 months) than the AEFE staff’s one. If we put the entire staff under the Board’s authority, won’t we have a higher risk of turnover?
Within the current board, we have 3 people have close working relationship to LVMH
I am wondering whether they have declared this conflict of interest (and to which independent authority)?
Hearing that LVMH decided to execute the votes (63 corporate debentures) attached to the corporate debentures of their employees, is this correct? If yes, did the Regional Head of HR of LVMH (spouse of Mr Goran Kuna) play any role in this vote?
Which procedures did you implement to ensure proper conflict of interest management? and how this is managed during the General Meeting’s vote?
Are we having the same issue with actual candidates?
Some parents asked for details of the vote by streams, by primary/secondary level but did not get any answer. Who decided that this information is confidential? and Why?
For candidates, how long have you been in HK and are you staying for the duration of your Board application?
Did you stop the work in the building at the entrance of BPR deemed to welcome Administrative staff on Easter? Are you still doing additional renovation and for which purpose?
Best regards,
Clotilde Chum, Alexandre Dufresne de Saint Leon, Samuel Faveur , Frédéric Lainé & Emmanuel Marchand
Nous entendons que le lycée français a un problème d’attractivité, que 35% seulement des enfants français y sont scolarisés, que le LFI n’est pas suffisamment compétitif.
La réponse: changeons de statut, optons pour le partenariat.
Regardons les chiffres.
Année 2017-2018:
Nombres d’élèves français au LFI
| Section Française | Section Internationale |
| 1.827 | 168 |
dont environ 270 en maternelle (MS et GS).
Source: AEFE, LFI website
Prenons les chiffres des inscrits au consulat en Décembre 2017:
Source: Rapport d’activité consulaire 2017
Inscrit au consulat par classe d’âge en 2017
| Total | 0-6 ans | 7-17 ans |
| 13.778 | 1.737 (12,61%) | 2.663 (19,33%) |
Nous pouvons donc calculer le taux de scolarisation par classe d’âge:
Taux de scolarisation au LFI par classe d’âge
| 0-6 ans | 7-17 ans |
| 15,54% (270/1737) | 64,77% (1827+168-270)/2663 |
Donc si la stratégie est d’attirer et fidéliser les jeunes enfants non scolarisés au lycée français, il faut avoir un plan clairement défini sur la maternelle et les crèches et surtout comprendre les décisions des parents. Un chiffre sans analyse laisse le champ à des interprétations erronées et ne permet pas de mettre en évidence des solutions pertinentes.
Au delà de la maternelle, le pourcentage d’élèves français scolarisés au LFI pour le primaire et le secondaire est plus proche de 65% que de 35%.
Les raisons possibles:
Malheureusement, en l’absence d’une stratégie partagée, les chiffres sans analyse suffisante alimentent les peurs et les opinions. Les classes de PS ont été fermées sur décision du CA en 2014, il y avait sans doute une bonne raison à l’époque.
Quelque soit le statut du LFI auprès de l’AEFE, l’évolution de l’environnement et des choix des parents nous obligent à élaborer une nouvelle stratégie à moyen terme, à ce jour mal définie voire inexistante. Cette démarche doit reposer sur une analyse factuelle, une vision partagée et consensuelle et, des institutions stables qui permettent de construire le LFI sur des bases solides.
L’équipe LFI action
Nota bene: Cette analyse a été réalisée de bonne foi avec les données dont nous disposons. Nous avons cité nos sources pour vérification. Nous sommes preneurs de tous chiffres, données et éléments qui pourraient nous aider à améliorer cette analyse open-source.
This is the translation of Les résolutions: explication de textes posted yesterday. Les résolutions: explication de textes
Dear all,
Many things have been said and written relative to the resolutions written by two LFI Action members and signed by over 60 parents. Acknowledging the questioning of some, and even the blaming of others who accuse us of being mean-minded, we believe it is important to remind all of us of the following facts:
These resolutions were put forward on April 11, when the Board had already publicly announced that they would call all members to vote on May 23rd General Assembly (GA) about a potential change of relationship with AEFE. These resolutions fall within a legal framework (NCO 622 Art 615) which aims at guaranteeing the rights of every member of the Association. They were meant to guarantee a real debate before the vote. [le board tardait à publier les informations promises durant les reunions d’information de BPR, JL et CW fin mars. Se reporter aux nombreux compte-rendus publiés par les parents représentants. « 12 Avril 2019: Le CA délivre 14 documents en Anglais (dont 11 disponibles en Français). La formulation exacte de la question du vote qui sera soumise à l’AG le 23 mai et les modalités de vote n’ont pas été précisés contrairement aux assurances données lors des reunions d’information. Il est probable que cette information sera envoyée avec les documents officiels pour l’AG. » (page Chronologie des événements) ](Update to be translated)
The Board did at first try to avoid the related discussion and the voting of these resolutions in the GA’s agenda, and they did engage legal fees to do so. Having had to accept them in April 27, the Board then modified the schedule and implemented the “binding consultation, which does not fall within a legal framework” (please refer to the Board exceptional meeting on April 27, its communication on April 29 and further details given by the Board on May 7). This change in schedule is an attempt to diminish the impact of these resolutions, and to make them look like anti-democratic, which is absolutely not the case. This maneuver also allows the Board to impede a debate within the General Assembly, hence harming the rights of the members of the Association (*).
Let’s now review the content of these resolutions. What do they basically say? First, they say that the method followed by the Board is not the right one and that it puts the stability of the Association at risk. The current violence of debates is the perfect example. They also say that to guarantee a controlled change, we need to start by:
(1) Define LFI’s strategic project with the entire community, which is the only way to remain united before embarking in such a change.
(2) Work on the reform of the governance of the Association and LFI’s bodies. Indeed, we must implement safeguards in order to ensure everybody’s opinion will be respected. We also must improve the functioning of LFI’s bodies in order to guarantee that we will continue to respect the homologation rules (French homologation).
(3) A change in relationship with AEFE should only happen once these 2 steps are completed.
This is not about countering the decision made by the majority but about ensuring that everything will be done in the right order to preserve our community’s cohesiveness. This is actually the reason why these two resolutions have been put forward. Their objective is to allow this work to be done, regardless of the choice made by the majority, while respecting the minority’s opinion: We will continue to study the partnership in case of a convention vote, and we will put in place the safeguards to reassure the pro-convention parents in case of a move towards the partnership. Please do read the resolutions and the 1000 words whose diffusion is being delayed by the Board, and you will see that these resolutions are, well on the contrary, absolutely democratic.
Finally, we believe it is important to remind that the LFI Action group was born spontaneously two months ago, regrouping parents who did not know each other but wanted to fully understand the Board of Director’s project, wanted to get informed and to inform other parents. Understandably, we ended up demanding that everyone could feel part of the decision in a legal manner and having hold a one-on-one adversarial debate. However much we all have different sensitivities within the group, all of us ended up very naturally united behind a same set of core values: democracy, pluralism, integrity and intellectual honesty.
And we have paid great attention, perhaps disproportionally, to understanding LFI’s situation, the challenges of our relationship with AEFE, the Board’s project, the impact of the change initiated by the Board … and we have tried to share that information within our very limited means. To be precise, we have spent a total of 1350 HKD to create our website and to organize the meeting at the school on May 2. We let you compare with the means engaged by the Board, to support their unilateral communication.
We have always aimed at obtaining a one-on-one debate that we hoped would be a democratic one, allowing each party to express itself in a fair manner, and we have always asked for the decision to be left to a majority of votes during a verbal assembly, such as a General Assembly. Let’s remind ourselves of the importance of “isegorie” (equality of speech), one of the founding principles of democracy. In view of the communications made by the Board over the last months, can anybody reasonably believe that this principle has been respected?
It is time to advocate for a change in methods and for the respect of the rights of each and every member of the Association: do come participate in the General Assembly on May 23 and get involved in the debates, and do vote for the candidates and resolutions that you believe are most suitable to ensure LFIs progress.
LFI Action candidates & the entire LFI Action group
https://lfiaction.com/2019/05/17/resolution-7/ https://lfiaction.com/2019/05/17/resolution-8/
* Just another proof of the credit given to the rights of the members of the Association : we have asked the Board to circulate to all of the members of the Association a text of maximum 1000 words explaining the objective of each resolution, in line with article 580 of NC) Cap 622. There hasn’t been any diffusion up until now, and we are still waiting for an answer from the Board relative to this legitimate request.
Bonjour à tous,
Beaucoup de choses ont été dites et écrites au sujet des résolutions portées par deux membres de LFI Action et signées par plus de 60 parents. Devant les interrogations de certains, et parfois meme les reproches d’autres qui nous accusent de mauvaises intentions, il nous semble important de rappeler les faits suivants:
Ces résolutions ont été déposées le 11 Avril, alors que le Board avait déjà publiquement annoncé qu’ils soumettraient la décision de changement de relation avec l’AEFE en AG le 23 Mai. Elles s’inscrivent dans un cadre légal (NCO 622 Art 615), visant à garantir les droits des membres de l’Association. Elles permettaient de garantir un débat avant le vote car le board tardait à publier les informations promises durant les reunions d’information de BPR, JL et CW fin mars. Se reporter aux nombreux compte-rendus publiés par les parents représentants. « 12 Avril 2019: Le CA délivre 14 documents en Anglais (dont 11 disponibles en Français). La formulation exacte de la question du vote qui sera soumise à l’AG le 23 mai et les modalités de vote n’ont pas été précisées contrairement aux assurances données lors des reunions d’information. Il est probable que cette information sera envoyée avec les documents officiels pour l’AG. » (page Chronologie des événements)
Le Board a tout d’abord cherché à empêcher l’inscription de la discussion et du vote de ces résolutions à l’agenda de l’AG et a engagé des frais juridiques en ce sens. Lorsqu’il a dû s’y résoudre le 27 Avril, il a alors modifié le calendrier et mis en place la « consultation contraignante, qui ne s’inscrit pas dans un cadre légal » (cf. réunion exceptionnelle du board le 27 avril, communication le 29 Avril et précisions apportées par le board le 7 Mai). Ce changement de calendrier permet avant tout de diminuer la portée des résolutions et de les faire apparaître comme anti-démocratiques, ce qu’elles ne sont pas. Cette manœuvre permet également d’empêcher un débat au sein de l’Assemblée Générale et ainsi de réduire le droit des membres de l’Association (*)
Venons-en maintenant au contenu de ces résolutions. Que disent-elles en substance ? Elles disent avant tout que la méthode adoptée par le Board sur ce sujet n’est pas la bonne et qu’elle met en danger la stabilité de l’association. La violence des débats aujourd’hui en est la parfaite illustration. Elles disent également que pour garantir un changement maîtrisé nous devrions commencer par :
(1) Définir le projet stratégique du LFI avec l’ensemble de la communauté, seule manière de nous unir avant de se lancer dans un tel changement.
(2) Travailler à la réforme de la gouvernance de l’Association et des instances du LFI. Il nous faut en effet mettre des garde-fous en place afin de s’assurer que l’opinion de tous sera respectée. Nous devons également améliorer le fonctionnement des instances du LFI afin de s’assurer que nous continuerons de respecter les règles de l’homologation.
(3) Un changement de relation avec l’AEFE ne devrait intervenir qu’une fois ces deux étapes franchies.
Il ne s’agit pas de contrer la décision de la majorité mais de s’assurer que les choses seront faites dans l’ordre afin de préserver la cohésion de notre communauté. C’est d’ailleurs la raison pour laquelle deux résolutions ont été déposées. L’objectif est de permettre que ce travail se fasse quel que soit le choix de la majorité, tout en respectant l’opinion de la minorité : Nous continuerions à étudier le partenariat en cas de vote convention et nous mettons en place des gardes fous pour rassurer les parents pro convention en cas de passage au partenariat. Lisez les résolutions et les 1000 mots que le board tarde à diffuser, vous verrez que ces résolutions sont au contraire hautement démocratiques.
Enfin, il nous semble important de rappeler que le groupe LFI Action est né spontanément il y a maintenant deux mois en regroupant des parents qui ne se connaissaient pas mais souhaitaient comprendre le projet du Conseil d’Administration, s’informer et informer les autres parents. Nous en sommes venus naturellement à demander à ce que tous soient associés à la décision de manière légale et suite à un débat contradictoire. Même si nous avons tous des sensibilités différentes au sein du groupe, nous nous sommes tous rejoints très naturellement sur des valeurs fortes de démocratie, pluralisme, intégrité et honnêteté intellectuelle.
Et nous nous sommes investis, de manière démesurée sans doute, pour comprendre la situation du LFI, les difficultés dans la relation avec l’AEFE, les projets du Conseil d’Administration, l’impact du changement qu’il a initié… nous avons cherché à diffuser ces informations avec nos moyens. Pour être tout à fait précis, nous avons dépensé en tout et pour tout 1350 HK dollars pour le site et la réunion du 2 mai. Nous vous laissons comparer avec les moyens engagés par le board pour une communication à sens unique.
Nous avons toujours cherché à obtenir un débat que nous espérions démocratique, laissant toutes les parties s’exprimer de manière équitable et souhaitant que la décision revienne à la majorité à l’issue d’une Assemblée de paroles telle que l’AG. Rappelons l’importance de « l’iségorie » (égalité de parole) parmi les principes fondateurs de la démocratie. Au regard des communications faites par le Board au cours des derniers mois, peut-on raisonnablement estimer que ce principe a été respecté ?
Il est encore temps d’œuvrer pour un changement de méthode et un respect des droits de tous les membres de l’association : venez participer à l’Assemblée Générale le 23 Mai, écoutez et prenez part aux débats, votez pour les candidats et les résolutions qui vous semblent les mieux à même d’assurer le développement du LFI.
Les candidats LFI action & l’équipe LFI action
https://lfiaction.com/2019/05/17/resolution-7/
https://lfiaction.com/2019/05/17/resolution-8/
*Autre illustration de l’intérêt porté aux droits des membres de l’Association : nous avons demandé au Board de faire circuler à l’ensemble des membres de l’association un texte de 1000 mots maximum expliquant l’objectif de chaque résolution conformément à l’article 580 du NCO Cap 622. Aucune diffusion n’a été faite jusqu’à présent et nous continuons d’attendre une réponse à notre demande de diffusion.
Ci-joint le texte de la resolution déposée le 24 avril.
RESOLUTION REQUEST FOR THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MAY 23rd 2019 submitted on 24 April 2019
The signatories are asking by resolution the signature of the convention with AEFE (version 29 march 2019), which can be denounced with 1 year notice (Art. 22); without impediment to the board of Directors’ work on governance, the FIS Articles of Association and by-laws and the pedagogical project.
DEMANDE DE RESOLUTION POUR L’ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DU 23 MAI 2019 requise le 24 avril 2019
Les signataires demandent par résolution la signature de la convention négociée avec l’AEFE (en date du 29 Mars 2019), convention qui peut être dénoncée à tout moment avec un an de préavis (Art. 22); cela sans restreindre le Conseil d’Administration dans ses études sur les évolutions de la gouvernance, des statuts du LFI à Hong Kong et l’élaboration du projet pédagogique.
Art 580 – Statement related to Resolution # 8 to be circulated to the association members ahead of the AGM om 23 mai 2019
The status change to partnership is going to profoundly impact the FIS’ mode of operation for the years to come.
On April 11th, 2019, when this resolution was sent to the Board, parents from the French Stream had not received much information about the decision which was, at that time, to be voted during the Annual Ordinary General Meeting of May 23th.
It’s important to remind that :
Thus, on April 11th, parents were worried about not getting objective, transparent nor partial information before May 23rd. They felt they would not be able to ask relevant questions for discussion during the Annual General Meeting, and that finally, they would not be in a position to take a decision in full knowledge of the facts, stakes and consequences of their vote.
Unfortunately, despite all the communication provided by the Board, parents still consider that they have not been able to express their opinion, to sincerely discuss the two potential options before the electronic vote named “binding consultation” finally imposed on them, given the fact that this “binding consultation” has absolutely no legal grounds compared to resolutions passed during an Annual General Meeting.
Moreover, crucial elements such as the strategic vision for the school still lacks. Partnership, as proposed by the Board in its documents, threatens balance of roles and responsibilities between all FIS’ actors and cancels educational counter-powers which were guaranteed by the New Convention with AEFE. Risks of micro management as well as interference with the pedagogical atmosphere do exist. Finally, agreeing and voting the new Articles of Association which need to be adapted and then submitted to the EDB and local authorities for approval will take approximately 2 years.
Analysis of documents provided by the Board up to day shows that the transition to partnership exposes FIS to significant risks for uncertain benefits while the New Convention offers a better answer to challenges awaiting FIS.
As a result, the aim of resolution #8 is now for parents and corporate debentures holders to vote the New Convention, which can be denounced with a 1 year-notice without impediment to the Board directors’ work on governance, FIS’ Articles of Association and by-laws and the strategic plan.
2. Qualification of the resolution and majority required
This resolution was first sent to the Board on April 11th, 2019. After having questioned its admissibility, the Board finally acknowledged receipt of it on April 24th,.2019..
This resolution was to be discussed and voted during the Annual Ordinary General Meeting of May 23th, at the same time as the resolution regarding the possible change to partnership. It’s aim was indeed to secure and guarantee the process to moving to partnership with AEFE in case parents would opt for that option during the meeting. Its legal qualification was thus “ordinary resolution” for which a simple majority of votes is needed to be passed.
On April 29th, the Board decided that the vote on the relationship with AEFE would finally not be implemented during the Annual Ordinary General Meeting -unlike they previously informed all parents- but on a three day-period (May 13th to May 15th) with an electronic vote. As this electronic vote named “binding consultation” has absolutely no legal basis, the Board declared it would ratify the result of the electronic vote by a Board decision on May 16th.
Provision 4 of FIS’ Articles of Association provides that : “ The members may, by a special resolution, direct Directors to take, or refrain from taking, specified action”.
As soon as the possible change to partnership became a Board’s decision prior to the Annual Ordinary General Meeting – instead of a resolution passed during this meeting- resolution #8 has been reclassified by the Board as a special resolution for which a 75% majority is required to be passed.
We officially contest, by this statement, the reclassification of resolution #8 and require it to be passed as an ordinary resolution with a simple majority of votes.
Ci-joint le texte de la resolution déposée le 24 avril.
RESOLUTION REQUEST FOR THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MAY 23rd 2019
Hong Kong, April 24th, 2019
Considering that
we request, for the smooth operation of the FIS, in case of a positive vote for the Board’s recommendation to transition to partnership the following resolution:
A postponement of the termination of the current convention agreement coupled with an extension of the transition period until the governance reform, the pedagogic plan and the engagement letter of the future team in charge of the transition to the partnership status are approved by the members by vote in an Extraordinary General Assembly, within a period of 6 months after their disclosure. In the absence of validation by the members, the transition to partnership will be terminated.
Art 580 – Statement related to Resolution # 7 to be circulated to the members before the AG on 23 mai 2019
The status change to partnership is going to profoundly impact the FIS’ mode of operation for the years to come.
Whereas the New Convention negotiated with AEFE clarified the roles and responsibilities of each FIS’ actor, the Partnership agreement threatens the balance between them.
The Board is going to be in full power upon the school strategic vision, financial and human resources management -including choosing the Headmaster for the French Stream- and operational issues. The transition to partnership is going to cancel educational counter-powers which were guaranteed by the New Convention with AEFE, and thus to increase the risk of micro-management as well as interference with the pedagogical sphere.
However, no safeguards have yet been planned in the road map to partnership.
The ones in the current FIS Articles of Association are insufficient and need to be reinforced as even stated by the Board itself. Defining the right governance, agreeing and voting the new Articles of Association and making them approved by the EDB and local authorities will take approximately 2 years.
We also notice that a code of conduct must be put in place in order to remind the roles and responsibilities of each party.
As a consequence, the governance of the school must be reviewed before that convention currently in force be terminated.
2. Definition of the school’s vision (strategic plan)
The school’s vision is crucial for, among others :
The strategic plan which materializes the school vision is currently inexistent. It needs to be defined and validated by the parents and pedagogical teams before any change in FIS relationships with AEFE.
3. Engagement letter of the Board
To guarantee the transition to partnership with transparency, trust, and support from all actors of FIS, the Board members’ commitments must be clearly defined, approved by parents and fulfilled. Board members must be accountable to parents on commitments made, on decisions taken and measures implemented.
We consider that these 3 steps have to be fulfilled prior to any termination of the convention currently in force in order to succeed in FIS transition to partnership with AEFE.
As a consequence, we require that the termination of the current convention agreement be postponed and coupled with an extension of the transition period until the governance reform, the strategic plan and the engagement letter of the future team in charge of the transition to the partnership status are approved by the members by vote in an Extraordinary General Assembly, within a period of 6 months after their disclosure.
In case validation by the members of these three fundamental steps fails, the transition to partnership will be terminated.
4. Qualification of the resolution and majority required
This resolution was first sent to the Board on April 11th, 2019. After having questioned its admissibility, the Board finally acknowledged receipt of it on April 24th,.2019.
This resolution was to be discussed and voted during the Annual Ordinary General Meeting of May 23th, at the same time as the resolution regarding the possible change to partnership. It’s aim was indeed to secure and guarantee the process to moving to partnership with AEFE in case parents would opt for that option during the meeting. Its legal qualification was thus “ordinary resolution” for which a simple majority of votes is needed to be passed.
On April 29th, the Board decided that the vote on the relationship with AEFE would finally not be implemented during the Annual Ordinary General Meeting -unlike they previously informed all parents- but on a three day-period (May 13th to May 15th) with an electronic vote. As this electronic vote named “binding consultation” has absolutely no legal basis, the Board declared it would ratify the result of the electronic vote by a Board decision on May 16th.
Provision 4 of FIS’ Articles of Association provides that : “ The members may, by a special resolution, direct Directors to take, or refrain from taking, specified action”.
As soon as the possible change to partnership became a Board’s decision prior to the Annual Ordinary General Meeting -instead of a resolution passed during this meeting- resolution #7 has been reclassified by the Board as a special resolution for which a 75% majority is required to be passed.
We officially contest, by this statement, the reclassification of resolution #7 and require it to be passed as an ordinary resolution with a simple majority of votes.
|
Chers parents, chers détenteurs de débenture, Dear parents, dear debenture holders, Vous trouverez ci-dessous les résultats de la consultation électronique contraignante sur le mode d’association avec l’AEFE. You will find below the results of the binding online consultation on the mode of collaboration with AEFE. Le taux de participation à cette consultation s’élève à 55,7 %. The participation rate to this consultation reached 55,7 %. Nouvelle convention / New convention : 41,7 % Partenariat / Partnership : 58,3 % Comme précédemment indiqué, la procédure associée à cette consultation a fait l’objet d’une certification par un cabinet d’avocats. As previously announced, the process associated with the online consultation has been certified by a law firm. |
Nous accusons reception des chiffres communiqués par le Board. Par soucis de transparence, pouvez-vous communiquer
1) le split FI/FF
2) le split corporate/private
3) le périmètre d’audit de l’avocat sur la validation.
LFI Action 