A few days ago the members of the association received an information mail. We think that there were made some statements, which should also be communicated transparently to the public - the association missed this opportunity.
The 2nd chairman writes that the association is incapable of action because the association may only be represented externally by 2 board members. That is correct, but has nothing to do with helping on site, because this has always been organized by the coordinator alone - no influence of the board is necessary there, so the work on site could be continued as usual.
Two board members are only necessary for:
- Board resolutions
- Admission of new members
Neither of these has any effect on the work on site, because even in the past it was not a prerequisite to be a member to become a volunteer and did not require a decision by the board either. Thus, it lacks any basis and work could be continued without any problems.
Furthermore he writes that under the given circumstances no professional care of the volunteers is possible. There is also no board resolution necessary, so that this could be continued problem-free as well. We are curious to know what exactly it is that makes it impossible to keep up the work on site?
It is communicated that the association "rests" until mid of january and the work would be continued in another organisation in the meantime -
we lack the name of the said organisation here and as said before, we believe that this is not necessary!
Even if one would assume now that for these activities an executive committee from two persons would be necessary, then this would be the case starting from December 21st, so that a resting until mid-January is just not understandable.
However, we already have an idea. Let's think out loud about a few chronological points:
On December 21st, a new board will be elected. This is immediately composed and decides a change of the statute, which would then be approved by a new general meeting, which makes it possible to pay "salaries" from the donations to the volunteers, as well as advertising measures (the reason why the old board finally quarreled). Then one waits, until this statute change is registered and can then, under payment of mentioned salaries, again become active. Chronologically, that would fits quite well, doesn't it?
However, let's just put these thoughts to rest and come back to the information mail.
We are also accused of having attacked the coordinators on site by means of an anonymous accusation. We don't see our communication as an attack, but rather as help - because someone turned to us publicly because the direct communication seemed to be fruitless. Unfortunately, however, our comments were not taken seriously. This accusation reached us as we passed it on, namely as a public comment on the website. The possibility of correction was given to the association at any time, but no one responded officially - so that this accusation still has weight! Here we would have liked, once again, more transparency! But the lack of resonance seems to confirm the accused fruitlessness of communication.
If one had reacted here properly and transparently, the uncertainty of any volunteers would not be given! Thus the association has to take the blame for this situation itself.
The 2. chairman blames these circumstances for the fact that also no acquisition of donations can be accomplished - thereby he forgets that no efforts where made long before already. Not at least because the then, now resigned, 1st chairman denied the payments of "influencers", since these would not have been in conformity with the association statute.
Also we see a bigger problem in the fact that the association, still, has no website, although this is to be developed since may. Nowadays people would like to inform themselves before they become active in an organisation and this is hardly possible due to the lack of a multilingual website.
But we are accused of using our website to damage the reputation of the association, we only communicate transparently and ask questions. Questions that can certainly be unpleasant for some, yes. But also questions that can help the reputation of the association, if they are used and answered. By the way, the reason we went this way is based on the fact that the questions that we had previously asked publicly, i.e. on the FB site and in the newsgroup of the association, were not answered, but faded out and deleted. This alone led to the website being designed as a WatchBlog, as it allows us to ask questions openly without them simply being censored.
So if you take the rest as given, the question arises, where are the current donations used? Do the donations flow into the unnamed organization and is this conform with the initial idea of the association DocMobile - Medical Help e.V.? What is the policy regarding the insurance of volunteers if they do not work under DocMobile? Because logically, the insurance of the association does not apply!
So if we sum up the mail, it has no substance and raises a lot of questions - what purpose should it serve?
Finally the sentence "We see ourselves furthermore and constantly obligated to the idea of DocMobile e.V." is to think about! One feels probably no longer obligated to the association, but to the helping thought. This leads then to the question, if in the unknown organization the assistance can be supplied, which DocMobile delivered, for what reason one holds the construct upright, instead of referring the Volunteers directly into that organization and referring any donors to them?