The last week and a half I have received many questions from parents about the proposed APEEE Code of Conduct (CoC): What is this CoC? Why does it need to be voted now? Why do ALL parents need to vote on this?

Before I start addressing those questions, I would like to say that I really think a CoC is a good thing. This is so because common sense does not always prevail. In those cases, having a set of ground rules for acceptable behaviour and communication may come handy for ensuring a good work environment. However, the APEEE’s proposed CoC is not fit for purpose. Below you will find out why.

A bit of CoC history

On 9 December 2020, the APEEE Board took the decision to draft a CoC. Since the statutes do not foresee a CoC, the next challenge for the APEEE was to have this CoC approved by the Annual General Meeting (AGM) that met in January 2021. Thanks to Saint Anthony, the patron Saint of missing things, who was yet again very kind to find and send me an email that would have otherwise been lost forever, we understand better what has happened.

In a matter of days the first version of the CoC was drafted and one board member was wondering on 16 December 2020 :

We need to consider how we bring this document to the General (Meeting). I fear that if we try to get the text approved on the evening we risk much time being taken up with editing by the delegates – this has happened before. Any thoughts?

Then another Board member came up with this brilliant idea:

What about a Resolution to modify paragraph 2 in Article 15 of the Rules of Procedures?

And this is what happened. The resolution proposed that the following text be added to paragraph 2 of article 15 of the APEEE’s internal rules of procedure:

establishes the Code of Conduct that all members of the Administrative Board undertake to sign and respect.

When the AGM agenda was sent out, the CoC was not attached to the agenda. So with this plan, the AGM would vote for the CoC without ever having seen it!

However, some class representatives started asking questions about the CoC, which they had never seen.   There were so many requests that the Board decided to share the first version of the CoC less than six hours before the AGM.

During the AGM, many class representatives went up in arms and there was a huge uproar: 

How can we approve something we have not had the chance to properly analyse?

And the Chair said:

I will amend, we will not adopt the CoC without the approval from the class representatives.

But before the text for the resolution was amended, and with all microphones centrally muted, the Chair eventually submitted the same proposed article for a vote. And that is how, in total confusion, the change to the CoC got approved by a narrow margin: 62,72% or 2,72% above the required 60%.

Thanks again to the email that Saint Anthony sent me, we know that the Board wants to avoid this CoC going through the AGM.

One year later, a different approach but not good either

It was a cunning plan, but an understandable one! After all, in the AGM, there was a real danger that class representatives might ask questions! Or worse, discuss matters of importance, and class representatives from one section might even be poisoned by the opinions of members of another section. It seems the board wanted to avoid these dangers at all costs. Anything to keep the linguistic silos closed and avoid a broader discussion between parents of different sections!

So after the AGM of 2021, the CoC went dormant for 11 months and was raised as a Phoenix from its ashes in the last week before the end of the year. The CoC has been shared with info representatives and is to be voted by only one vote per class. In case no vote has been cast, it will be considered an agreement with the CoC.

With parents who are for a great part overwhelmed with end-of-year stress and quarantine, the no vote cast equals a yes vote was another smart move, and at least one dubious democratic practice.

This big exercise, where all parents are consulted and the info representative can cast one vote per class, is not described in any of our association’s legal texts.  Nobody knows how the votes inside class should be organised. Nobody knows if and how votes will be counted, how binding its result will be and how comments will be taken on board. Some classes are currently fighting about this. Fighting about a CoC of a parents association is, if you look at it, completely absurd. For our brave APEEE board members this surreal situation is all fine, as long as they are saved from a discussion with the class representatives at the AGM.

What’s in it and why should you care

Why is this matter so important for our parents association? Aren’t these articles in the CoC very noble? And is it not in the interest of parents to have representatives of high integrity, consensus-seeking, courteous and respectful?

Then I would ask you to read the CoC a bit more carefully:

• Article 1 states that Board members have to be transparent. That is fantastic! Unfortunately, it does not say Board members have to be transparent to the parents. It is written that they have to be transparent to other Board members! Is there something written about transparency towards parents? No, not really.
• Article 3 talks about the APEEE confidentiality agreement. The confidentiality agreement is actually a non-disclosure agreement which makes it next to impossible for APEEE Board members to share any information with the parents. It also defines confidentiality in vague terms and doesn’t describe the procedure through which any files become confidential.  So, Board members have to be transparent to other Board members, but non-transparent to the parents, the people they are supposed to represent. 
• Article 4 is about loyalty. Loyalty is good. But this article is about loyalty to the Board which is putting things upside down. Board members should be in the first place loyal to the parents, in the second place to the APEEE and in a very distant third, to the Board.
• Article 7 describes communication by Board members. Clear and respectful communication are indeed important things in any organisation. But this article seems to go much further than just communication. It’s about Board members reporting each other to other board members. In this way, a seemingly reasonable section on communication quickly turned into a half-baked complaints procedure, with more potential to fuel a climate of distrust than otherwise.
• Article 10, is the core of the CoC and actually changes the CoC into a disciplinary code, where board members will discipline themselves. Majority versus minority. And if you do your maths well, it will take as little as 10 active board members to discipline a naughty one!

We are a school community of over 5,000 parents coming from all corners of Europe and beyond, and from all walks of life. As a community, we have different views on things. Different ways of expressing ourselves. Different ways of doing things. Any article in this CoC will be understood in a different way depending on the culture you come from. However, since it is linked to the disciplinary code, it will create more conflict than it will resolve.  This disciplinary code will be a tool to silence board members who have opposing views. I seriously doubt that our children, their well being and their education will benefit from it.

The Board is the body that oversees the functioning of APEEE and takes strategic decisions. When we talk about the Board, it is just a number of parent volunteers who have meetings (minimum) ten times a year. The meetings are chaired by one parent volunteer who has no hierarchical position under Belgian law. It seems that the chair is currently unable to chair those meetings in a professional manner. It seems this is the reason why the Board is so keen to have a Code of Conduct as a miracle solution. Send them to the dungeons if they don’t agree or if they ask questions. 

In the modern world, the idea is that diverse teams can bring great results. As a parent recently said, we celebrate great results because of differences and not despite the differences.

This is also a value we cherish in the EU  institutions where most of us work. We have survived World wars, cold war and Brexit. Freedom of expression and values that embrace diversity should be the cornerstone of our parent association just like the way our European Schools were founded on those principles. Have we as a parent community assessed what are the potential damages to the school community with the adaptation of such a document?

The question we should ask right now is: what is more critical for the interest of our parent community, our school and our children? A Board that struggles with diversity of views? Or one that embraces diversity, believing it will lead to better and more inclusive decisions?