Minutes of AADK Board Meeting: August 25th, 2010
Meeting:
AADK Board Meeting
Date and Time: 25.08.10 3pm – 8.30pm
Present: Trine Pertou Mach (TPM), Nis Benn (NBE), Dines Justesen (DCJ), Berit Asmussen (BAS), Steen Folke
(SFO), Signe Lund Christensen (SLC), Hans Beksgaard (HBA), Michael Skov (MSK), Elsebeth Krogh (EKR), Merete
Lyngs (MLY), Henriette Ravn (HRA)
From the Secretariat: Frans Mikael Jansen (FMJ), Iain Schmidt (IS), Vibeke Vinther (VVI) for point 3 and 4, and Lea
Sofia Simonsen (LSS)
Absent: Vibeke Qvist (VQV) and Helen McEachern
Minute-taker: Lea Sofia Simonsen
Meeting was held in Danish and approved in English.
Agenda
1. Welcome and approval of the agenda
2. Approval of minutes from the Board Meeting on June 24th, 2010
3. AADK Work in DK (strategy)
4. Presentation of “MS in Nørrebro” Concept Paper
5. Proposal for 2011 – 2013 AADK Budget
a. Considerations regarding AADK’s Lean Secretariat
6. Preliminary Discussion: Updating MS (AADK) in Transition
7. Sustainable Development: Future Strategic Direction
8. AADK Climate Priorities
9. AADK Rolling Political Plan 2010-2011
10. AADK Annual Council Meeting: Decision on Agenda and Process
11. Board’s Written Report for 2010 Council Meeting
12. Briefing on AADK Staff Situation Report 2010
13. Any Other Business
1. Welcome and approval of Agenda
Trine Pertou Mach, AADK Chairwoman, started the meeting and informed everyone that due to schedule needs, the
order of the agenda was altered from that which was sent out, to the agenda found above.
The Board approved the agenda alteration.
2. Approval of minutes from the Board Meeting on June 24th, 2010
The Board approved the minutes from the previous meeting held on June 24th, 2010, with no comments to the content.
However, one board member did point out that it had been indicated at the previous board meeting, as reflected by the
minutes, that the Strategic Framework for International Governance was meant to be on the August agenda. However,
it was clarified that this strategic framework was still an on-going process, which would be presented to the new board
in the fall of 2010.
%
The Board approved the minutes from the board meeting June 24th, 2010.
3. AADK Work in DK (strategy)
Frans Mikael presented this draft strategy to the Board, explaining that this was a framework document that should
quickly and concisely describe the scope and intention of AADK’s work in Denmark, as it interlinks between the various
fundraising, communication, policy, media, volunteer and membership strategies. FMJ pointed out, that these under
strategies were not fully outlined within the strategy framework, as many are set to be revised or generated in 2010.
FMJ wished the board, and the Council when it will be presented at the Annual Council Meeting, to only consider the
principles of the strategy: why work in Denmark? In terms of the outlined option for possible activities regarding
Governance programme activities in Denmark, Frans Mikael prescribed retaining the option for future programme
activities, but to refrain from concretely implementing activities prior to the final strategy development of AAI in 2011.
The question asked of the board was, could the strategy be concrete and detailed enough to be sent to the Council?
- LAbP
Page 1 of 7
Last edit: 2017.07.31
81926648
MS ActionAid Denmark
Board discussion:
The board discussion regarding the Denmark strategy was not wholeheartedly positive. There was a sense that this
strategy was not quite on an overarching strategic level nor were the activities and strategies prioritized thoroughly. In
terms of the governance programmatic option, the Board felt that it was regrettable that a concept paper had not been
developed on the basis of the workshops held in the spring, and that there was the risk that much of the discussion and
knowledge exchanged might be lost as a result. In terms of the option inserted into the strategy, the board believed that
it did not entirely capture the spirit of the workshop discussions, and would therefore rather that the programmatic
aspect was retained within the context but not expanded into the strategy at this juncture.
In terms of the overall strategy, the Board felt that the strategy needed more time and editing to mature prior to being
presented to the Council in September, and that the decision to present this strategy could be premature. There was
discussion surrounding the somewhat confusing interjection of English words in the Danish document, and the
superficial descriptions of the sub-strategies on Activista, members and volunteers, Global Contact and policy focus;
the Board felt that these descriptions did not adequately reflect the strategic priorities for the programmes or the earlier
strategic descriptions associated with these areas. Many of the Board members believed that this strategy should be
seen more as a work in progress, than a finished result. One of the dominant discussions were the prioritizations
featured within the strategy, both on a sub-strategic level as well as on an overall policy level – what is AADK’s focus in
Denmark? SFO pointed out that this strategy has not included all of AADK’s policy priorities: missing were Climate and
MDG 3 Women’s Empowerment. In terms of membership, it had been hoped that this strategy would be the decisive
factor in determining the difference between members, financial supporters and the various other types of MS
supporters.
FMJ expressed surprise at the reaction, and felt that this should generate a more overarching discussion on the
substance and aims of this strategy – as seen by the Secretariat, this strategy was a comprised document written as
specifically and concretely as possible, as it was intended that the sub-strategies would be more detailed and
expansive. The Board thereafter offered specific comments to the strategy, which were noted by the secretary for
purposes of revision and applied to the document. The Board felt that bringing this document to the Council as it is
would be problematic, as it did not capture their vision or understanding of the strategy for work in Denmark. However,
the Board also felt that they were bound to provide a guideline/strategy for this work, for the Council to discuss and
vote on. The Board was in complete agreement that this strategy is necessary and must be provided to the Council,
however it was felt that the differing levels of strategic consideration and finalization of the strategy’s sub-elements
would not be expedient in terms of Council discussion. This led to considerations that perhaps the strategy could be
revised and re-written prior to the Council meeting, and that it could be presented to the Council under strategically
directed facilitation and perspectives; the Council does not need to vote and accept the strategy, but could rather
signify that the strategic foundation of this strategy is sound and allow the new Board elected at the Meeting to approve
the specifics in the fall.
%
The Board therefore decided that:
1. The Governance activity option discussion is premature, as there is no background or
concept paper associated. Therefore retain the option in the context chapter of the strategy,
with reference to religion removed, and remove all other reference in the document.
a. A working group consisting of TPM and FMJ will write out a summary of the
discussion and thoughts regarding this option for internal brainstorming purposes.
2. A working group, consisting of NBE, FMJ and VVI, will revise the strategy based on the
comments issued at the Board meeting, as well as written and text-specific comments from all
Board members who were present at this meeting. The revised document will be sent out by
September 3rd, for orientation and comments from the Board.
3. At the Council meeting, the Board will present the strategy in a very controlled discussion,
asking the Council to focus on the strategic dilemmas within the strategy and specifically
asking for input on certain categories within the strategy. This will provide further quality
control of the strategy. The Council will not be asked to vote on strategy.
4. MS på Nørrebro
FMJ presented the brief concept paper, “MS på Nørrebro”, which provides a qualified concept of who AADK is, as well
as who is located within the AADK expanded culture, such as those who rent office space from the organization and
who participate in creating the culture of the organization. As there are many activities associated with the organization,
- LAbP
Page 2 of 7
Last edit: 2017.07.31
81926648
MS ActionAid Denmark
this concept paper attempts to bind all of the links together to give an overall impression of who AADK really is within
Nørrebro.
Board discussion
The Board approved of the concept paper and believed that it portrayed the organization from the right perspective and
defined the culture surrounding the organization succinctly. The only comment made, was a suggestion that perhaps
the organization needs to increase its presence on Fælledvej, the street outside of the office compound. This
suggestion was both on a strategic and structural level – i.e. a strategic consideration of how to influence AADK’s
neighbours or a structural consideration of adding a banner on the walls out to the street to solidify AADK’s presence.
% The Board approved of the concept paper and believed it accurately and positively reflected the rationale
for AADK’s move back to Nørrebro and desire to establish a Global Platform in Copenhagen.
5. Proposal for Budget 2011-2013
FMJ and IS presented the budget sent to AAI for 2011 – 2013, and explained that this was sent to AAI on August 23rd,
prior to the meeting, but that a final version would first be sent at the close of September. In addition, negotiations on
the budget could continue until the close of November. So with this budget, FMJ and IS were asking the Board to
approve of the principles within it, rather than the specific figures represented. In addition, FMJ presented the dilemma
of the current Resource Allocation Framework and its implication for the organisation’s budget in the future. The RAF,
in its present form, was adopted at the AAI General Assembly in 2010 on its principles, while the specific percentages
accrediting net contribution were placed in annex form for the pilot year. IS explained to the Board, that in its current
form, AADK would not be able to meet the net contribution demands of the RAF, and that a negotiation discussion
process was currently under way with AAI. The main problem lies in meeting the required net contribution to AAI, which
with present percentages lies at approximately 10% of the organisation’s revenue, appx. 21-23 million DKK. The only
path for AADK is to deliver these funds through budget relieving expenditure for AAIs International Secretariat – but this
is a part of the on-going discussions.
The budget presentation provided an overview of the Danida frame expenditures; consisting of an elevation in the level
of self-financing required in 2011 which will be covered by significantly increased fundraising revenue, an increase in
funding for International Governance Theme, a decrease in funding to the country programmes as AADK shifts focus to
programme monitoring rather than implementation, and the addition of a new funding area on Fragile States. The
organisation’s own funds are expected to increase significantly over the next 3 years, due to the resources expended
and choices made in 2010; in particular the Supporter Programme, AADK’s recruitment of financial supporters is
expected to raise fundraising revenue by 3.1 million DKK. As a result, AADK will be able to meet requirements for selffinancing from the Frame Grant and that the organisation’s budget is sound through the next 3 years, aside from a
small budget deficit in 2011. In the larger picture, the organization is moving in a direction of a tighter economy,
meaning that the budget will require that no investments are made in the organization and the Secretariat and its
personnel must begin to reflect the new strategic direction away from Southern-based country programme
implementation and towards a greater focus on policy and campaign within Denmark. The Lean Secretariat structure is
based on productivity, and this is the attitude that must be adopted for the future of the organization and its staff
structure.
Board discussion
The Board understood that the organization is now headed into a tighter economy, where there is a lower margin for
error than in previous years. There was some nervousness in terms of the build-up of the 3 year budget, with revenue
producing programmes, such as Global Contact, Training4Change and Fundraising, expected to generate significantly
high returns in order to retain a sound budget. The Board was interested in understanding the consequences if these
numbers were too ambitious and could not be met in the following years. Particularly fundraising expectations were a
cause of discussion, as it is still a fledgling programme and there has been a tendency earlier that fundraising often
takes more time to ensure high returns on investment. However, FMJ interjected that he believed that the organization
was actually being careful regarding its ambition level for these programmes, particularly fundraising, and that AADK is
confident in the trajectory of these programmes. NBE added that the Finance and Audit Committee would be
monitoring these programmes closely and will evaluate the situation in November.
Another element the Board discussed was the high investment indicated within the budget on fragile states. As the
Board had approved in principal that this was an area that AADK would focus on, the budget is reflecting this
prioritization over the next 3 years. FMJ clarified that AADK would not be moving immediately into programme work in
- LAbP
Page 3 of 7
Last edit: 2017.07.31
81926648
MS ActionAid Denmark
fragile states, but would rather spend the first year building up knowledge and evaluating fragile states and
methodology.
The Board engaged on the subject of the expanding Global Platforms world-wide, which started a discussion of
whether it would be possible to link more training activities to the Frame grant. HRA suggested that AADK needs to redefine capacity development as an activity in and of itself, rather than simply a support function to Governance, which
would allow AADK to redefine which activities could be covered by the Frame grant. IS mentioned that there are
already some elements of training which are covered by the Frame grant, but that the process needs to be systemized
correctly in order to encourage further advancement. Linked to this concept of redefinition is the current understanding
of separation between restricted and unrestricted funds, the Board was in agreement that the Secretary General, in
conjunction with the Chairmanship, would be allowed to negotiate these principles with AAI, within a reasonable
margin.
The Board was also drawn into the subject of AADK’s difficulties with the RAF. All were in agreement that the
percentages described within the framework are not tenable for the organization, nor for any other organization that
received public grants which restrict funding. However, the Board agreed that negotiations could be made and that the
most important element is to find a creative solution, as the organization has already committed to deliver
internationally on fundraising and policy/campaign work as their priority.
% The Board accepted the 3 year budget, with the understanding that it is not final, but that the power to
negotiate and alter the budget in negotiations with ActionAid International lies with the Secretary General,
with support from the Chairmanship.
6. Sustainable Development (point out of order)
BAS presented the agenda point, by indicating that though this sustainable climate discussion has been a long
process, the Board working group did manage to have a rather sensible and forward thinking workshop on the subject
of considering sustainable development within the frame of AADK in the future, in August. Although the foundation for
the workshop was relatively superficial, it had a positive end and the overall consensus from the workshop was that
AADK needed to find a way to work with sustainable development that is in line with its strategic path and
competencies. The workshop discussion touched on ideas such as re-definition of sustainable development as a
paradigm, involving the re-definition of concepts of “justice” versus “fairness” in order to allow a development on any
level that can be durable. Another discussion was regarding the idea of where AADK’s priorities should lay, on the
strategic or programmatic levels? The Board’s work group found that, based on the discussions and thoughts of the
workshop participants, that there were 3 models for how AADK could work with sustainable development in the future.
1. The Inquiring Model
2. The Tool-based Programmatic Model
3. The Strategic Development of a new Paradigm Model
Board discussion
The Board agreed that it was unfortunate that this process had not been started earlier in the Board term, but was
positive regarding the feedback and direction that this workshop had provided. It was quickly agreed that AADK is not
an environmental organization, though it does support climate campaign and policy work. The Board believes that the
concept of sustainable development can be incorporated into AADK’s anti-poverty agenda and HungerFREE
campaign, as AADK looks to the future and the developing of the new AAI strategy in 2011.
% The Board agreed to create 2-3 page concept paper on Sustainable Development that can be used to
heighten the importance of sustainable development within AADK’s work on HungerFREE, land rights,
climate campaign and overall anti-poverty activities. This concept paper will be aimed at AAI, in terms of
incorporation of sustainable development understanding into the developing strategy process in 2011.
SFO is responsible for developing a draft, which will be finalized by BAS, TPM and FMJ in September 2010.
7. MS in Transition
FMJ presented MS in Transition by indicating that it was an updated transitional plan for AADK that had its foundation
in the upcoming AADK work in Denmark strategy, as well as laying the ground work up to the 2011 evaluations/reviews
of all of AADK’s side agreements as well as work in Denmark. This review/evaluation process would culminate in a new
- LAbP
Page 4 of 7
Last edit: 2017.07.31
81926648
MS ActionAid Denmark
strategy process for AADK in 2012, which would build upon the foundation of the newly developed AAI strategy set to
be finalized by mid-2011, and include an AAI peer review process and external review of all major programmes.
It was pointed out that the new areas in this transitional strategy were primarily within point 3, which summarized the
planned path for working within AAI - particularly in terms of influencing AAIs new strategy process.
Board Discussion
The Board agreed that the transitional strategy was well thought-out, and primarily sole in need of minor adjustments
and updates to bring it into line with the current state of the organization. As this was a first draft, it was completely
understandable that adjustments and updates were necessary. The Board noted that some of the language within the
document also needed to be re-phrased, sustainable development needed to be expanded as a point, and the new
work in Denmark strategy needed to be updated and explained more fully within the document.
%
The Board approved the new MS in Transition 2010, with the understanding that it would be
updated in terms of the new AADK in Denmark strategy, the current strategy papers and
specific adjustments mentioned by various Board members and noted by the Secretary.
8. AADK Climate Priorities
FMJ presented the Secretariat’s proposal for AADK’s Climate Priorities from 2011 – 2012, noting that in particular the
two segments to be noted and followed up on were the campaign aspects, which would mean integrating climate
priorities into AADK’s campaign work, and the prioritization within the campaign work.
Board discussion
The Board sensed that these prioritizations were both for AADK as well as within AAI, and felt that the Secretariat was
right to maintain the pressure on climate through political lobby and campaign, as it already integrated with the
organizations hunger and poverty perspectives. The board supported that AADK is not a climate organization, and
therefore will not be overtly in technical aspects of climate lobby, but would rather retain the focus on climate funds in
the Finance Law for 2011, maintain pressure on the government to not renege on its debt as a wealthy country and to
use campaign to increase popular foundation and knowledge on climate.
% The Board approved the Secretariat’s proppsal for AADK’s Climate Priorities from 2011 – 2012, with the
understanding that the document would be re-written for better clarity, and the caveat would be included
that AADK would be working to influence the upcoming Danish presidency of the EU on the climate
question, as it pertains to hunger and poverty.
9. Rolling Political Plan
FMJ presented the draft of the 2010-2011 Rolling Political Plan, which provides status updates on the Action points for
the 2009-2010 political year, and offered prospective Action points for 2010-2011.
Board Discussion:
The Board found the status points to be well described, though they felt that there were certain points in the status
update on MS in Transition where the description could use some editing, both in presentation and in grammar. It was
felt that the plan felt a little too inside-knowledge, and to make it a document to be presented to the Council, it needed
to become more reader-friendly with introductory paragraphs and simpler presentation; it should be clear that this
document is an action plan entered into between the Council and the board. Also, it should be made clear that this is
document reflects the board’s action and political mandate.
In terms of the action points, the board felt that the proposed points reflected the agreed strategic and programmatic
process for the next year, but should also reflect some political and substance points.
% The Board approved the Rolling Political Plan, with the understanding that the following adjustments
would be made:
 Presentation would be made reader-friendly: introductions and background information
included in each section.
- LAbP
Page 5 of 7
Last edit: 2017.07.31
81926648
MS ActionAid Denmark



The document will be translated to Danish, and clearly indicate it is the Board’s action plan.
Addition of political action point: The Board shall closely monitor and actively engage in the
upcoming Danish presidency of the EU, and seek to ensure a political dialogue regarding
Danish development assistance’s paradigm shift and focus on private sector support.
Addition of programmatic strategy point: The Board must work on further developing and
expanding its knowledge and methodology for working within Fragile States.
10. Board’s Written Report
Very briefly, TPM presented the proposed points for the Board’s political written report, which will be presented at the
Annual Council meeting in September. In this proposal, TPM chose to focus on such issues as the climate campaign
success during COP15, the impact of the paradigm shift in the Danish development policy, and focus on the
ramifications of the Finance Law, which offers neither prospect for increase in development aid nor funds for climate as
promised.
Board discussion:
The board was in agreement with the issues chosen by TPM, and additionally mentioned the importance of the MDG
goals, focus on including AADK’s policy and lobby on Zimbabwe in 2009-2010, which underscored the organization as
a knowledge centre, as well as the new focus on supporting fundraising for disaster relief through ActionAid in Haiti and
Pakistan.
%
The Board approved the proposed points as the framework for the Board’s political report.
11. AADK Council Meeting
NBE presented the Council meeting working group’s proposed programme for the Annual Council meeting, reflecting
on the choices made to deflect from traditional association meeting styles and embracing alternative conference
models, as requested by the Council at its introductory meeting in May. TPM added that participation from the Board
was both pivotal to the meeting and expected, as well as reminding all board members that everyone would be up for
election at the Council meeting in September.
Board discussion:
The board was enthusiastic about the altered meeting style indicated by this new programme, though there was some
discussion regarding the timing of final discussions on the major strategic and programmatic documents versus the
deadlines for editing proposals. FMJ responded that as all Council members would have the documents well ahead of
the meeting weekend and have the opportunity to discuss and develop editing proposals during the group discussion
periods prior to the editing deadlines on Saturday, there should not be any significant challenge to the indicated
programme times. In terms of the documents set for decision at the meeting, the board felt that the AADK work in DK
strategy should not be set for decision by the Council as it would be a premature action – therefore it was decided that
instead the Council should be able to come with input to the new board regarding the strategic format and principles of
the strategy.
The Board did address the issue of first rule of procedure, which regarded the adjudication of the right to speak and the
right to vote at the Council meeting. In order to be democratic, all members of the association must have the right to
address the meeting; however in order to attempt to maintain the time-line in the programme, the Board recognized the
need to have a possibility for control over speaking time. On the case of right to vote, the rules of the Constitution
maintain that only Council members have the right to vote.
On a different level, the Board felt that the Sunday programme was rather long considering that the meeting spanned
the whole weekend. MLY suggested an effectiveness measure that would decrease the time needed for voting and
formalities on Sunday.
%
- LAbP
The Board approved the programme and rules of procedure, with the following provisions:
 Programme revision: Political panel debate would be removed in favor of more time for
discussion, a shorter programme on Sunday and a more festive atmosphere in the evening.
 Revision of the rules of procedure: would be revised to indicate democratic openness for the
right to address the meeting for all members, not a right reserved for the Council. It should be
the meeting chairperson’s right to set the procedure for speaking at the meeting.
Page 6 of 7
Last edit: 2017.07.31
81926648
MS ActionAid Denmark

Programme revision: AADK work in DK would be set for strategic discussion and debate, as it
is the foundation for MS in Transition and the board’s work for next year, but would not be set
for decision at the Council meeting as it would be premature.
12. AADK Staff Situation
Briefly, FMJ presented the report on the AADK staff situation, which comments both on the size and strength of the
organization’s staff policies. This is presented to the Board, as they are to monitor and ensure the nature of the
organization’s culture and staff policies.
Board discussion:
The board was favorably impressed with the staff situation at the organization, and followed up on a few of the new
developments since previous year’s staff policy checks. In 2007, stress and pressure were major factors for the
organization’s staff policy work. FMJ mentioned that AADK is developing a stress policy this fall, and will be holding a
staff meeting to educate the staff on this new policy.
The board was particularly interested in the rate of turnover amongst staff and what the average seniority was; FMJ
pointed out that many of the long-term employees are approaching retirement age, and as a result of the academic
employees contract restrictions (an academic contract can run no longer than 5 years, with a 3 year renewal option),
the question to be answered is rather how to hold on to valued employees,
% The board appreciated the orientation and maintains an interest in securing the positive nature of the
organisation’s culture and human resource policies.
13. Any other Business
 The Board was interested in hearing the results of the prior weekend’s AADK Fair Festival, FMJ
reported that the official numbers were not yet tabulated, but due the rain and the extenuating
competition from the Gay Pride parade on Saturday, the Festival was expected to break even, but
not turn the level of profit expected. However, the event was a success in form of organization,
volunteer coordination and programming.
 Cheers were given to the wonderful press results from På Spøret af Velfærd and the new logo.
% Due to the lengthy nature of the agenda, the chairwoman decided to discuss the AOB point regarding
Volunteer weekends with the other board members via e-mail.
- LAbP
Page 7 of 7
Last edit: 2017.07.31