Work in progress
WORK IN PROGRESS
In case anyone is interested in following this process we have added the links to the documents we have been working on since we came back from the assembly:
https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0B1dvlBDD00WpTFZUN1hNRHJCblk
Idea for internal AC platform
The current website hosting runs with a CMS (Content Management System) that all the organizations already know and have access to publish news in the AC website. We also have a tutorial for publishing on the current AC website.
For the internal platform, a simple way could be to generate a folder inside the hosting where we can install and configure the same CMS, with the same users database, for facilitate the use of it, and the access will be restricted in the home page (front end), this means to see the content you have to login and use each organization password.
This option allows to maintain the current styles (CSS) and plugins of the “public” CMS for publication and content visualization.
Consultation on Legal Entity options – from Alejandra Montiel
Dear Paula,
Thanks for the meeting we had this weekend as well as for the information you have provided. As discussed, the group of organizations we discussed (the Group) is interested in exploring possible legal organization options that would consider the diversity of the members of the Group in order to keep operating as a sole Group and face the upcoming changes in investment, funds, operation, self-sustainability, etc.
A preliminary and very basic analysis shows the following:
Merge possibility
This would imply creating a new entity by merging all the existent members of the Group.
This is simply not feasible due to the current conditions of the members, which are all dully organized and registered in their correspondent jurisdictions.
It is almost impossible to find a jurisdiction in the world that would allow such a large merge of organizations with such diverse legal back ground.
In my opinion, this is simply not feasible.
New organization
The members could serve as founders or shareholders or a new organization to be created (the Neworg)
Said Neworg would possibly need to be created in a so called tax haven, which allows for easier conditions for founders of such diverse origin, v.g, BBVI, Delaware, Nebraska, etc, just to mention some in the American continent.
Even if this was possible it would be necessary to obtain and secure the legal documents from all members, apostille and legalized these documents in order to have then create a Neworg as founders and/or shareholders
Once created, the Neworg would possible require a director, administrative staff and there is a risk that a new level of bureaucracy and thus expense would be created.
The main question here is: does the Group really need a new entity and all the expenses associated to is creation and maintenance?
A new idea
Let’s look at the EU from a bird’s eye perspective:
It is a supranational organization composed by different countries, with their own regulations, identity and conditions.
Its motto: United in Diversity
The members have agreed to abide by a common document or constitution, approved according to the methods established by the legislation of each country.
In those cases in which the country’s legislation does not allow them to accept all the conditions, exceptions are made, v.g. the English case, in which monetary integration has not occurred.
Its main goals are integration and multinational cooperation.
The EU is not registered in any world registry. Nonetheless, due to its organization and the behavior of its members, it is acknowledged world wide as a valid counterpart, with cooperation offices and embassies.
It follows, in general terms, the concept of confederation or federation.
It’s modus operandi is defined as follows:
“through common policies regarding different fields of action”
“In order to achieve common goals, the members appoint the Union several attributions, powers or competence and the Union exercises a common or share sovereign authority”
It has an internal system based on the representative democracy regime and 7 main institutions:
European Parliament.
European Council- in charge of general political orientation and appointment of representatives before third parties.
Council.
European Commission
Justice Tribunal
Accountability Tribunal
European Central Bank
There are as well many sub committees or smaller institutions for specific activities.
Although the origin EU dates back from the end of the IIWW, it is not an original ideal. The British had already developed something similar through not as complicated through the concept of the Commonwealth for all countries which once were British colonies.
So, let’s explore the possibility of creating our very own version of the UE. How shall we call it? Arts Union? Commonwealth of Arts? International Arts Collective? Global Arts Community? Shall we let the advertisers, marketing people or best yet, the members decide?
Why does it seem to be a good idea?
The Group members are already dully organized in their own countries.
The Group already has drafted its basic document of principles (a constitution if you will), approved by all members according to its own internal regulation.
The Group has a clear vision of activity distribution, which coincidentally includes seven different areas.
Each section could issue the Group regulation for its area considering the wellbeing and needs of the organization and submit it to the comments, observations and approval of the rest of the members.
The Group already has ample experience on negotiating and agreeing on documents across the borders.
The Group requires a supranational form of organization, based on self-regulation, and based on integration, collaboration, diversity and unity concepts.
The Group is not looking form complicated national changes such as change of currency, strong economical adjustments, customs regulations, common air space, common criminal regulation- which should make it easier. Also, any elections of representatives would be easier among 25 members as compared to 500 million (approx.) citizens.
The Group could allow for exceptions in the memberships or level of memberships according to its need.
It may require additional bureaucracy, just as the EU does, but not new organization
The head of the organization could rotate every X time.
It is a flexible organization form.
Keeping the reasonable distance and concept-wise, the UE scheme and the direction the Group has taken is very similar.
So, just do it!
Not yet. In my opinion, it is worth exploring.
It must have cons, right?
Yes and this is something that must be studied.
For instance, one non-legal question is how would such an organization be received by world funds that may provide further funding for self-sustainability projects? Maybe they will give it only to an individual member, but then the member could distribute or contribute the amount received to the Group’s finance. Maybe some funds would be willing to provide funding to strengthen this type of organization.
I’ll be more than willing to discuss this in further detail with you or the members of the Group if necessary.
Thanks for the opportunity to participate in this. I love the idea.
Alejandra
Last updated