AD/ACT to Plankiskeya - planning overleg werkgroep beleid invloed
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Against Child Trafficking
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 at 12:38
Subject: Re: planning overleg werkgroep beleid invloed
To: George Schuddebeurs
Cc: Sandra de Vries
Dear All,
Here are my general comments/ thoughts.
For me the results and content matters.
I still have no idea about what Samenwerkingsverband actually means. As I cannot attend the meetings with the project team as I am in India I' m also a bit out of the loop.
That the Project Team does not make it possible for me to attend, speaks for itself.
Generally speaking, the ministry should come out with a Tender Terms and Conditions for the Expertisecentrum and then organisations can actually submit their proposals and the best is chosen. Could be FIOM too.
That would be a normal public procurement process.
These direct agreements with the Fiom should in my opinion be stopped. It has been going on for too long. Generally direct agreements are a red flag and often a sign of corruption.
Here we are operating and planning in the dark. Nobody has a real idea about what the ministry does, and they decide anyway whatever they want.
We do not even know what money is available and how it can be used. There was neither any budgeting done.
The whole process is totally intransparent. What about the new subsidy regulation for the Samenwerkingsverband the Project Team spoke about ? How is the ministry going to distribute the funds? Are service providers getting again some 25.000 EUR or less, which cannot be even used for searches or DNA? How are coaches going to be compensated ? Do we just get 2500 EUR for being part of a Samenwerkingsverband ?
Even if it is done like now with the FIOM , then I still think there should be a new organisation. This organisation then can be the central point and can hire "service providers'. Maybe even the FIOM to run the daily affairs of the Expertisecentrum.
Alternatively the ministry comes out with an appropriate subsidy regulation where organisations can submit their request for subsidy.
Be it:
Psychosocial support
Legal advice
Searches
Post Adoption Services.
Social events
Etc.
The organisation needs a Board and an executive Director, management team and an independent Klachtencommissie and Advies Commissie. Then of course staff, coordinators who deal with the different subjects. If the ministry insists that the FIOM is the central point, then the new organisation can hire the FIOM for this service.
The suggestion I made also to Sandra is that the FIOM should outright reject the current plan of the Ministry. We should all do it. Together.
We managed earlier together that the FIOM did not become the central point for the 1,2 Million. Did not turn out well though. But it shows the power we have when we all come together.
This current scenario is a perfect recipe for failure. First of all 3.6 Million EUR or less per year is far too little money to cover the needs of the adoptee community and others as the ministry wishes. It will just be window dressing.
It may take some more time to develop this properly, but one can build up on the meetings we all had together.
It is also really important for the success of an Expertisecentrum that by and large the community supports this. That means all organisations who are currently active. It requires that we all come together and have serious dialogues and exchanges.
Equal partners also means that those who work full time are being paid appropriately. Costs/ Expenses of volunteers need to be compensated - if they wish so.
The community by and large will feel very bad about the Expertisecentrum because no one receives compensation currently for having had the identity changed and often erased. If only the Expertisecentrum receives money we and the Centrum will be rightfully accused of taking away choices from Adoptees. Adoptees want -understandably to have choices, be in control of whatever process. Rightfully adoptees do also very much mistrust organisations who are funded. Many had negative experiences with organisations in the field and feel people are only after money and their careers. That is one reason as to why other organisations advocate for a Rootsfund.
We need to restart the whole process and build upon whatever the Projectteam has now.
1st:What services are needed? That has been pretty much discussed.
2nd:We need to talk about standards and protocols.
For example what can be done by volunteers, what not.
What qualifications should those have who carry out searches ?
Should searches be done by those who facilitated the adoptions?
What formal qualification should coaches have ?
When are searches going to be conducted publicly over social media?
Should organisations which assist adoptees with searches be registered in the respective sending country?
How are time and the search process logged? What about reports ?
Should we encourage adoptees to support their families financially? What are the actual experiences with this topic
What is an appropiate compensation for work time?
Etc. Etc.
3rd: we need an honest and transparent evaluation of the work the organisations do. What works, what does not work ? What can be improved? What are the plans? Organisational and financially.
4th: we need to exchange and build an understanding between the organisations who carry out searches that what works in country A well or only, for example DNA based searches is the only way for Chinese adoptees, may not work in other countries.
Remember also that the ministry has commissioned a study into DNA based searches ? Is the Ministry going to provide free DNA Kits?
As far as I know, it is rather forbidden in China for example
5th: We need to budget.
In the letter to the FIOM the ministry asks about the costs for the Expertisecentrum. This is why i bring this all up again, knowing that many will think again, Oh Arun again he wants money for searches....
As UAI we did this process on a smaller scale previously. It was not easy. There were many discussions and also fights. But it was fruitful in the end I think. UAI handed ( just 5 organisations) a plan to the tweede kamer on request. . That was voted down immediately.
Then we made a Gezamenlijke Plan. Sadly due to personal fights, Shapla, MR and Planangel boycotted that. Yet handed in a very similar plan. This was on request of Sander Dekker to the UAI.
One outcome also is the attached Excel Sheet which Jasper developed. It helps pretty much to calculate what money is actually needed for organisations. Regardless of how they actually work.
All the work we actually did already has been summarily dismissed by the ministry.
If I understand it correctly the meeting on Friday is about the about the ‘bestuurlijke inrichting’ of the Expertisecentrum and all want of course somehow to have a say. Individual Adoptees want a say, the organisations which are not participating in the Samenwerkingsverband want to have a say and we organisations who do participate want to have a say. I thank the FIOM to have the shared the letter of the Ministry with us and for agreeing to this meeting.
I have read the letter and the statutes of the FIOM ( attached).
The FIOM is a Stichting and has a Raad van Toezicht and a Raad van Bestuur and a Raad van Advies
If I understand it correctly there is no space for adoptees to get a formal right and say in the FIOM,
A possibility is the Raad van Advies. One possibility is that 5 representatives of organisations from the Samenwerkingsverband become part of the Raad van Advies on a rotating basis.
For this it is necessary that the final decision over subsidies are being made in the ministry and not within the FIOM. George does have a good point that it would be a conflict of interest if organisations decide about their own possible subsidies,
Maybe, it can be written into the contract between the FIOM and the Ministry that the FIOM has to specifically follow the advice of the Raad van Advies regarding the Expertisecentrum. Maybe then it is "right".
In Belgium it was done with a Stuurgroep, but it is a disaster as the groep has no actual powers.
Let us be clear, there is nothing much democratic in all this. It is messy. A new organisation could be a membership organisation. Adoptees who want to have a say can elect the Bestuur and a Raad van Toezicht, a Raad van Advies and a Klachtencommissie.
The FIOM could also become a membership organisation that is another possibility.
I have told FIOM already that I'm not necessarily insisting that FIOM should not run the Expertisecentrum. I am very willing to compromise. However at the same time it has to be secured that searches are supported as well as adequate psychosocial support.
Here I mean specifically that organisations who do so are funded. I do not even mind at the end, if FIOM is using the ISS network for countries where there are no organisations. Somehow I maybe even prefer just the FIOM and adoptees not having a real formal right to say. Our community is a pretty toxic environment at times. While at the same time the community is really great and the connections adoptees have with each other. It is just really difficult to fairly work together.
My modest proposal is that in the Samenwerkingsverband we agree that one of the goals is to advocate for compensation from the Dutch government. Adoptees should be able to request compensation on request.
Secondly, if the Dutch government is not willing right now to spend more than this 36 Million, we should together ask the government to turn it back to 5 years.
Then we have a real amount of money.
Initially the fight was actually done/ led by the UAI. Meaning Shapla , Mijn Roots, Plan Angel and ACT/ ARC. Notwithstanding the efforts of others.
I think the ministry should come out with a subsidy regulation for all the organisations who were registered before September 2020 or 2019 ( like the other subsidy regulation) to offer assistance.
Be it coaching, social events, whatever.
Or searches.
I propose 150.000 EUR per organisation and evaluations. How many are there? Not so many.
Practically complicated are the DNA based searches. It is a legal and ethical quagmire for the Dutch government.
If the Dutch government funds organisations who collect DNA from people in other countries systematically and the DNA is being put into US commercial databases, that is a real issue.
I think we have to be a bit more understanding on this point with the government. I have run the DNA concept through human rights activists in India. Surely this does not go well with them.
If the Dutch government's funds the collection of DNA of other citizens countries for US commercial Databases large scale, this will definitely lead to diplomatic friction
The question is, what if the government funds overhead costs, such as rent, stuff etc and the organisations and adoptees pay for the DNA kits itself? We should ask the ministry of justice about their opinion about that.
I totally understand that for many adoptees DNA is the only hope and surely the US commercial databases are the best bet.
Coaches should actually get a Psbk certificate. Hartini for example did this. I do not fully understand this and I' m open to learning. My understanding is that the health insurance pays for coaches who have that Psbk certificate. Correct?
I am pretty long in this field. Almost literally 24/7 since 2001. I have a pretty good overview and understanding of the actors in the field and the power structures as well as the different agendas.
The very reason the ministry does NOT put any budget for searches is the Hague Adoption Convention. Searches are the responsibility of the sending countries.
The Expertisecentrum is also used as an argument to block compensation claims. It is just window dressing. Further the ministry wants the searches to be done by and within the Hague System.
ISS / DCI, the permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference together with the Dutch government have developed this system. A system where now even David Smolin states after having pleaded for reform for 17 years, that is in breach of international human rights standards. In fact that is the highest form of crime. I'm not surprised the Dutch ministry assigned the FIOM, which is part of the ISS network. We have predicted this.
If there are no serious changes done by the Ministry we maybe should consider to step out, instead of becoming part of this sick system. We will not get sufficient funding but will just be used so that the ministry can say that they involve us, while we do not even have any say.
We need to keep in mind that the ministry decided to continue ICA and likely will give base funding to the new adoption organisation. The system now leads to #staatsontvoeringen in the Netherlands. Twitter is full of it and it is a real scandal.
The issue is geopolitical, it is the US American idea of child welfare, permanency and of course adoption and regulated markets in children.
I hope the FIOM stands really with us and rejects the ministry and we can have serious dialogues with the ministry. The current state of affairs is unacceptable for me.
This will just become another disaster like the Meldpunt.
As an organisation which advocates for human rights, I do not want to be part of it as it currently develops.
Yesterday evening Amanda/ Sri Lanka stepped out of the Samenwerkingsverband. I think maybe ACT and UAI should maybe do the same.
Thanks for reading, Thanks for all your engagement, Thanks also to the FIOM for trying to really include us.
Best regards
Arun
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 at 12:45, George Schuddebeurs
Hi Arun,
Is it possible for you to note down your remarks in advance?
We are all in a timesqueeze because of the deadline from the Ministerie, so the call with FIOM has to be vertelt efficient and to the point, and about the ‘bestuurlijke inrichting’ of thé Expertisecentrum en het Samenwerkingsverband’.
Outlook voor iOS downloaden
Van: Against Child Trafficking
Verzonden: Monday, April 18, 2022 6:37:49 AM
Aan: Sandra de Vries
CC: Bina de Boer
Onderwerp: Re: planning overleg werkgroep beleid invloed
Dear All,
Friday 10am is very difficult for me. But I will try. Probably while sitting in the cab. Hopefully it works with the internet connection.
I'm Looking forward to it.
Best regards
Arun
On Sun, 17 Apr 2022 at 23:56, Sandra de Vries
?
Dag Allemaal,
Arun Dohle (ACT) neemt ook deel aan de sessie. Ik moet om 10 uur a.s. vrijdag bij de kaakchirurg zijn voor een operatie. Ik ga drie kwartier voor deze voor de deur staan om de auto te kunnen overleggen. Moet wel om klokslag 10 uur naar binnen. Hoop dat het Ellen ook lukt.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Sandra de Vries
manager Programma's Verwantschapsvragen en Adoptievoorzieningen
signature_510731460
Op de hoogte blijven? Meld je aan voor onze nieuwsbrief
Volg ons op Facebook, Twitter en LinkedIn
Kruisstraat 1 5211 DT 's-Hertogenbosch ? T: 06-123 588 14 ? www.fiom.nl
Bedrijfsinformatie en voorwaarden
From: Bina de Boer
Sent: Sunday, 17 April 2022 13:48
To: Viviana
Cc: karabedell@gmail.com
Subject: Re: planning overleg werkgroep beleid invloed
Hi Allen,
Ik vermoed dat er een foutje in de communicatie is geslopen, ik kan as dinsdagochtend, dinsdag 26 april kan ik niet i.v.m. een bijscholingsdag.
Fijne paasdagen.
Warme groet Bina
Op 16-04-2022 16:51 schreef Viviana
Dag Sandra en Ellen,
onderling hebben Kara, Bina, George en ik data afgestemd die we graag aan jullie voorleggen, dat zijn:
- vrijdag 22 april 09:15-10:00
- dinsdag 26 april 09:15- 10:00
Hopelijk zit hier een datum/tijdstip tussen dat in jullie agenda's past. In het algemeen geldt voor ons dat dinsdagochtend en vrijdagochtend de meest geschikte opties zijn.
Hoor graag wat voor jullie goed uitkomt. Dan stuur ik zodra we een datum hebben een linkje voor het overleg.
Fijne voortzetting van een hopelijk zonnig Paasweekend.
Hartelijke groet,
Kara, Bina, George, Viviana
Warme groet | Kind regards
Bina de Boer
Adoptie Coaching | Systemisch coach & trainer |
Docent HAN Hogeschool Nijmegen
Noordersingel 58 | 8917 BB Leeuwarden
+316 23 08 16 42 | www.adoptiecoach.frll | bina@adoptiecoach.frll
Nederland en België
Bina Coaching is ook te volgen op:
Website www.adoptiecoach.frl
———————————————————
Disclaimer:
Dit bericht kan informatie bevatten die niet voor u is bestemd. Indien u niet de geadresseerde bent of dit bericht abusievelijk aan u is toegezonden, wordt u verzocht dat aan de afzender te melden en het bericht te verwijderen. Bina Coaching aanvaardt geen aansprakelijkheid voor schade, van welke aard ook, die verband houdt met risico's verbonden aan het elektronisch verzenden van berichten.
This message may contain information which is privileged or confidential. If you are not the named addressee of this message please destroy it without reading, using, copying or disclosing its contents to any other person. Any addressee should be aware that Internet e-mail is subject to risks; Bina Coaching therefore denies any responsibility for damages resulting from the use of Internet e-mail.