Mirjana (Mimi) Stojanovska (North Macedonia), firstname.lastname@example.org
1. Sigtuna report, April 2017
Chair of the AM Committee
2. Dave report, October 2016
The Annual meeting Committee had a very fruitful and interesting meeting in Marathon, in the context of the 24th Annual Meeting of FEPTO. The colleagues who participated in this meeting and will constitute, for this year at least, the members of the AM Committee are Agnes Dudler (Germany), Peter Haworth (U.K.), Maxine Daniels (U.K.), Anzhela Hristoforova (Bulgaria), Jorge Burmeister (Spain), Margarita Karmaze (Lithuania) and the Committee Chair Nikos Takis (Greece).
The meeting began with Nikos Takis presenting some thoughts for the function of the LOC (Local Organization Committee’s) and how this works within the FEPTO organization. In some cases the LOC members have to undertake risks and responsibilities for which they are not always adequately and sufficiently supported by FEPTO. The conflicts created among LOC members in the past that Agnes Dudler outlined in the meeting and also in the FEPTO large group are maybe related with this deficit. One example is that the LOCs are held responsible for the 50% in the case of financial loss of the Annual Meeting, even if they have followed the Council’s instructions and recommendations meticulously. On the contrary, in case of profit, which is what usually happens, the LOC is not entitled to any percentage of it. Everything goes to FEPTO.
Regarding the finances of the Conference, the burden is shared equally in case of loss between the LOC and FEPTO and in case of profit 75% goes to the LOC (or 50% if FEPTO issues receipts and invoices) and the rest to FEPTO.
It was a common inference among AM committee members that the LOC is not sufficiently remunerated for its hard work and risk taking. This conclusion generated a discussion on how it can be that the organizers are receiving a tangible acknowledgement and recognition of their efforts, without reducing the profit of FEPTO. The proposed changes of the AM committee are the following:
1. For the Conference: LOC receives 75 % of Profits, FEPTO receives 25% of Profits
2. For the Annual Meeting: LOC receives 25% of Profits, FEPTO receives 75% of Profits
3. In case of loss in the AM, the equal share of the financial between LOC and FEPTO remains (50%-50%). In case of loss in the Conference, the LOC takes full responsibility, since the committee is responsible for the design, the structure and the content.
Another topic that was addressed was the price of the Annual Meetings which is considerably high in some cases, not allowing colleagues from several European countries to attend. The committee chair was committed to work on this issue along with the rest of the council and propose some ideas within the next few months.
The meeting ended in a climate of warmth and collegiality among the participants. Maxine Daniels directed a short vignette in end, offering generously a psychodramatic closure to this very interesting encounter.
Chair of the AM Committee
3. Goals of the Annual Meeting Committee
My relationship with the community of FEPTO and the feeling of belonging to it was generated and strengthened in a great extent trough the attendance and active participation to the last four Annual Meetings of our community. I met wonderful people there, made new friends, was able to discuss with some more experienced colleagues whose work and ideas I appreciate enormously, developed my own training skills and tools and finally transmitted this newly acquired knowledge to the institute I represent and its trainees.
Furthermore, the number of participants in Annual Meetings has increased considerably the last year. I strongly believe that many of us share the feeling of the importance of the Annual Meetings and the Conference that precedes it the last 10years.These feelings along with the conviction that those events are two extremely crucial moments in the life of our Organization function for us as a compass that will guide the activities of the Annual Meeting Committee of the present council.
Our goal is twofold: on the one hand we will try to improve even more the experience of this genuine encounter and meaningful interaction which is taking place among FEPTO members, by enriching the training component and also implementing more targeted activities, concerning needs, wishes and desires that have been formulated or requested by the members. At the same time we also intend to place some more emphasis in the processing of the different dynamics, interactions and phenomena which are taking place within the members of the community, or partial units of it, such as network groups like intervision groups and the task force for peace. We believe that the identity of the organization is rapidly changing the last years, due to the large number of newly subscribed institutes, the multifaceted activities in which we are involved etc., and one of our main tasks as group therapists and trainers would be to assess and understand in depth these changes, in order to render them as beneficial as possible for the future of our community.
Another important area of activity will be the further development of the Conference that precedes the Annual Meeting, which has to be more appealing to the trainees of our institutes and independent psychodrama practitioners, not necessarily trainers. Our vision about it would be to transform it in a pole of attraction for people who are involved in psychodrama, by encouraging practitioners to present innovations and new methods of psychodrama interventions and providing to trainees the opportunity to be exposed to different styles of psychodrama.
Finally, we invite you all to contribute with your creativity, your ideas and your remarks in the further amelioration of the organization of Annual Meetings and Conferences. We will be waiting for your comments.
4. Annual Meeting Committee report for Lisbon, March 2014
The Annual Meeting Committee is coming towards an end in its task of supporting the LOC in organising the FEPTO conference and the FEPTO Annual Meeting.
It has been some busy months with loads of work but the cooperation with the Portuguese LOC has been both exciting and the cooperation in very good spirits. We know it will be an exciting time at the conference in Lisbon and a challenging and rewarding Am in the beautiful surroundings of Obidos where we will refocus on training. No doubt our Portuguese colleagues have done a tremendous job in organising these events and I know we will all feel privileged and well taken care of.
The Annual Meeting Committee’s members are: Yaacov Naor, Leandra Perrotta, Horatiu Nil Albini and Eduardo Verdu. We have all been very active and as new to this chair, the great exchange of knowledge and experience has been absolutely necessary in order to be able to grasp the responsibilities following this chair. In addition to the committee members, Norbert Apter has been contributing quite extensively in periods.
Yaacov Naor took over the chair from Norbert Apter and it was at one point taken over by the undersigned. Horatiu has contributed a lot by making us aware of what is missing at any point and Leandra Perrotta and myself, together with the help of Yaacov created guidelines and step-by-step manuals for the chair. These documents will be of good help for anyone who takes over the chair in the future. Still there is quite some work left before they are ready. We have communicated weekly and many weeks we have talked many times a day.
Our focus has been:
- To support the Portuguese LOC in organizing the conference and AM
- To continue the good work of the last chair, Norbert Apter, who did start a tremendous job in professionalising this committee
- To revise the guidelines for organising the Conference
- To revise the guidelines for organising the Annual Meeting
- To create guidelines for the chair of the committee
- To create a step by step “what to do” in supporting a LOC
- To create a step by step “what to do” for the LOC
- To prepare the future hosts in 2015, 2016 and 2017
In 2015 our German colleagues represented by Agnes Dudler and Stefan Flegelskamp are ready to invite us to Bonn/Cologne. Hopefully we will know more about the dates and venue when we meet in Lisbon.
In 2016 we are in the fortunate position that Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey are all interested in hosting us. No decision has been made and we will invite them to present themselves more at the AM in Lisbon.
In 2017 we will have our 25th anniversary and what would be more natural than to ask our Swedish colleagues to host us. It all started in Sweden in 1993 and we thought it would be a great honour to go back where it all started. So far we do not know if the outcome of our invitation as it was sent out short time ago.
Looking through the voices of the different AM and conferences we realize that it is impossible to make all participants happy. We are a many faceted group with many cultures and many different preferences. Still it is important for us to continue to get your ideas and hear your voices,- not only at the conferences and AM once a year, but throughout the year. Please feel free to contact me if you have ideas or reflections.
Eduardo Verdu, chair of the Annual Meeting Committee
5. Santander Annual Meeting voices and FEPTO Conference voices
6. Report of the Annual Meeting Committee on April 21st 2010
The meeting took place in Kovacica/Belgrade on April 21st 2010, Stefan Flegelskamp, Hilde Gött, Jasna Velcovic, Rosa Shemesh and Agnes Dudler were present. Minutes were taken by Agnes.
Main topics: Evaluation of the LOC for 2010 and proposals for Israel 2011
The experience of the Local Organization Committee (LOC) from Serbia: Jasna reports (as did before the two Zorans in the council) how incredibly much work they had to do. They sometimes were afraid not to be able to manage it. They had a group of trainees, who did a great job. We all could experience this during the AM.
For all of us but the more for the LOC it was a great challenge, that due to the volcano we did not know exactly, who would when arrive and how many would be able or willing to come by train or car if the flights stayed cancelled. The program had to be changed almost every day. This was a pity, because a lot of work done by the LOC has been in vain.
Hilde asks, if there is a financial compensation for the trainees, because every LOC will need the help of trainees. Rosa thinks of a lower fee for the conference for the LOC. They expect a number of 80 – 100 participants in Israel. The entry permits for all member countries to Israel should be checked. The LOC of Serbia will give their contracts and their communication forms to the new organizing committee from Israel, preferably as a DVD.
The committee votes for scholarships for the PC and suggests that the budget for the PC should include a percentage for scholarships. It is agreed by the LOC that the VOICES are helpful and participants acknowledge it well, that there suggestions are realized as far as possible. Rosa is happy, that there is not only a chair for the AM but a group of colleagues behind or around the chair.
Evaluating of this years AM
Positive: The development of the annual meeting is evident and a great pleasure. A great job has been done under these conditions.
Negative: Too little time in plenary. The film of the meeting of the research committee in Italy was too long, specially as we had less time this year due to the volcano.
Missing: Reflecting the war in Yugoslavia/ Serbia and its consequences. The report of the small groups will take place later this evening.
– The selection of small groups should be done with more time and after a longer warm up to prepare the suggestion of topics and the choices more thoroughly.
– Is a topic for the annual meeting really necessary or does it not lead to expectations that are too high? As our annual meeting has the ongoing topic according to the goals of FEPTO (development of psychodrama and psychodrama training in Europe) it is not really necessary, but at least for the warm up a topic is important.
Suggestion: The budget for the PC should include a percentage for scholarships
Bonn, November 5th 2010
7. Report of the Annual Meeting Committee on April 5th 2009
The meeting took place in Deinze/Ghent on April 5th 2009 with Victor Debats, Stefan Flegelskamp, Hilde Gött, Ina Hogenboom, Zoran Ilic, Ildikó Mävers and Hannah Salomé; Agnes Dudler could not participate; minutes were taken by Hilde who stood in for Agnes.
Main topics: Evaluation of the LOC for 2009 and proposals for Belgrade 2010
The experience of the Local Organization Committee (LOC) from B and NL of this years Meeting and Conference was collected and gathered by Zoran. The LOC did a good job and tried to develop the communicative structure between LOC and council. It was the first time in 2009 that not only the formal organisation but also content and structure of the Annual Meeting was to be decided mainly by the LOC in cooperation with the annual meeting chair/ council. The LOC of B and NL will give their contracts and their communication forms to the new organizing committee from Belgrade.
The experience of the Dutch/Belgium Local Organising Committee from 2009:
– The organising committee was a large group of 10 people which sometimes was not so easy.
– The timetable they developed was important and will be translated from Dutch into English during the next three weeks.
– Important is to fix a schedule with deadlines for special organizational tasks.
– It is good to choose a speaker and a secretary at the beginning.
– Two different subgroups were responsible for conference and meeting, and among them
– responsibility was divided between those for the content and those for the frame (accommodation, registration etc.)
– Successful was the correspondence through website and emails.
Roles and functions of the members in the LOC
- Chairman – he kept close contact to the board – and signed the contract for the conference and for the meeting
- Secretary – (3 persons) they were responsible for the timetable
- The financier – did the budget and was in close cooperation with Chantal, the treasurer of FEPTO
- The PR group – they prepared everything for publishing on the website and did the correspondence
- Organiser of the social event
- The programme planner
The LOC experienced as helpful and positive:
– Making a reservation of the meeting place in advance
– Registration for early birds which started in October and ended January 15th (60% by then registered) and no last minute reduction.
– Clear appointments with the management of De Ceder in written form.
– Meetings every month
– Communication with Jutta through Skype and Agnes came twice to NL.
– The board remains responsible for who is allowed to come as a guest, and the regulation for who can be participant of the members.
There were some suggestions for the next meeting in Belgrade*:
To leave more free time for encounter especially to have no program in the evening sessions.
To have topics like – working with colleagues, – contamination of small groups, – ethical questions, – psychodrama in times of crisis – Who shall survive? – You can’t dim the darkness, but you can turn on the light.
It was a good work in this group and all wished Zoran as the representative of the new LOC an easy going organisation for our next conference and meeting in 2010 in Belgrade.
We will be happy to meet you next year in Belgrade,
Hilde Gött and Agnes Dudler
8. Report of the Annual Meeting Committee in Bearsden 2008
Participants: Ina Hogenboom, (NL), Victor Debats (NL), Rainer Bosselmann (D), Agnes Dudler (D) and Hilde Gött (D). During our meeting at Bearsden we discussed the following topics:
1. Procedure of the admission of new members and keeping of quality
Under the impression of the problems around the admission of the Norwegian Academy the question arose:
Why does the GA have to vote at all for new institutes to become member, when we have clear MTS (Minimal Training standards), that are checked by the Membership Comittee? Do we need it as a ritual? Could there be another form?
Would it not be sufficient to ask before for example via Email: Who has or Are there serious objections against this institute/organisation becoming member?
There was the wish for clear and transparent criteria of admission. And a wish for continuity of participating in the AM.
2. Transparency of decisions: What is happening here?
It was said to be difficult for normal participants to understand what is going on. A tendency to mystify the background of decisions was observed. Maybe this is necessary, because not everything can be made transparent to everybody.
3. Orientation and help during the AM
New members/ participants should have a helping person to address.
The LOC should name a person and a place to turn to with questions of every kind.
During the process of one session the topic of the next is easily forgotten. So it would be helpful to build a bridge by referring at the end of one meeting to the topic of the next.
During the first meetings in the large group there is to be taken care to build up contact and security. It looks like that the insecure open space at the first reflection group led by Rainer and Hilde caused uneasiness and avoidance. The funny games suggested by different members were voluntarily accepted; they seemed to meet the needs of the members: stay children, not to differentiate too much, stay away from difficult topics and reassure: we are able to do it by ourselves.
The Social Dreaming Matrix the next morning was very helpful in the process of self assurance and holding together, FEPTO as surviving and ongoing.
4) What is our main request towards FEPTO?
Feeling of identity and fellow feeling – meeting of the psychodrama family?
During the first large group sessions there was observed a strong wish to feel at home, to be accepted and not rejected, to have a clear and strong guidance, FEPTO to fulfill our needs and wishes, and fear FEPTO might be destroyed.
5. FEPTO as growing organisation
Who are the grand parents? It would be nice to have a sociodrama about this next year.
What will FEPTO look like 5 or 10 years from now? Are we going from a familiar enterprise to big business?
9. Report of the Annual Meeting Committee in Alacati 28th of May 2007
Participants were: Ina Hogenboom, Jana Segula, Victor Debats and Agnes Dudler.
The main topic of the meeting was that all in all we have a fruitful conference this year with a very good atmosphere. Though the program seems to be a bit too packed, which is a pity, as there is enough interest to discuss and deepen the single topics. “Less input and more time to digest” Going on with the process of improving our conference and trying to realise a better structure and communication we suggest the following:
Concerning time boundaries and communication:
A later start at the first day, because most colleagues are tired after their journey. More respect for each other and for the time boundaries. More time in between for building up and deepen contact. Keeping the appointed time and start with who ever is there, they are the right ones (principles of open space). It is a pity if lecturers have stress through reduction of time. Plan enough time for the G.A.; usually 3 h are needed.
Large group / Plenary:
Group was too big à production of group phenomena like amplification. Smaller groups allow real exchange. Missing was: a psychodramatic approach to the large group. More security has to be established before sociodramatic work starts in the large group like Melinda’s exercises; it was missing in Friedel’s demonstration. The functioning of the group can and should be improved. More warm-up of the participants to each other would probably help, this was missing. It seems necessary to do something about/ against regression and egoistical self-presentation, that a few people, who have a comment on everything, are always talking.
Same groups for the whole conference with the chance to change, if you are in the wrong group. More facilitating seems to be necessary in the small group, maybe empty chair for facilitator or form really small groups of 6, that do not need facilitating.
Topics / Program:
Distinction between working on a topic and exchange for example about leadership phenomena. Technical aspects need a situation and conditions to practice and exercise. We should introduce as a regular topic: Best practice = “amuse geul” or specialty of psychodrama trainers.
There is the wish to have name and country on the labels. Excursions should be on the third instead of the second day to be more in contact before, so they could be used to work up intensively the topics and deepen contact.