EYP Georgia
The 3rd Rustavi regional Session European Youth Parliament Georgia Presidential evaluation
12
Introduction The overview bellow concerns the 3rd Rustavi Regional Session of the European Youth Parliament Georgia and is intended to neutrally assess the evaluation of the session’s logistic and academic sides. It mainly describes the problems and positive precedents that I detected, which can be avoided or useful for the future
EYP events. Although I took into consideration the multiple points raised at the evaluation meeting (November 11, 2012) and analysis of delegates evaluation. The ideas and positions expressed hereby are solely mine.
Session Preparation: the obvious issue that emerged in the process was the late allocation of the delegates and thus late distribution of Preparation Kit. While the delegates still proved to be very competent on given topics, it would have been better to run the selection process 1 or2 weeks prior to the actual session dates.
Delegates: I would like to mention the positive side of having foreign delegates at the session and I would like to encourage this tendency on our local sessions. In the evaluation form one delegate noted:” I think there were too many pupils at this session”. Thereby more involvement of the university students on our sessions would also be very much encouraged from my side. We should take a note of evaluations made by chairpersons as several delegates do not deserve to attend following sessions. Venues: The hostel was a perfect place for the session and the school adequate for Committee work. We were informed late about taking linens down to the hostel stuff due to what we were late for the departure. If we were informed beforehand no one would be frustrated. However, organizers were informed while the check-out and they are not ones to blame. Food: food was delicious but usually late that was inconvenient for chairpersons as well as for delegates. As one delegate indicated there was no vegetarian food on the first day but this was not an issue on the second day. However, delegate’s dietary needs should be cautiously filled by the delegates and carefully followed by organizers. Media coverage: Media coverage was provided for the opening and closing ceremonies. However, the Self Governance of city Rustavi states that 65 Rustavi citizens attended the session that is not real. There was no banner when the TV cameras were recording the General Assembly. General Assembly: As it concerns the GA process itself, it was conducted in a professional manner and delegates proved that they were well-prepared for the topics. The The hall was not ready (no board table, no projector or microphones) when we arrived and board was managing the organizers to prepare the venue. The GA was a bit late as we were waiting for the EU anthem music (that could have been coordinated beforehand), Unfortunately the second GA venue was not technically ready as well and we had to wait for it, The transfer to the second GA venue was not well managed by organizers and the session board had to take control of it.
Delegates’ evaluation for indicated that for some participants did not feel the glory of GA which I suppose was due to uncomfortable GA venue.
Journo Team: The journo team released very interesting newspapers and very amusing video. Moreover, journos performance on the session was well evaluated by delegates. However, for the next sessions the journalists’ activity on the GA should be decreased. Organizers Team: Despite some problems mentioned above the organizers team operated quite successfully. By the delegates’ evaluation the organizers were easily available and well informed. Chairs team: the team was selected on a very short notice. However, it still displayed a good balance of pioneer and experienced EYPers. The topics suggested by chairpersons and approved by the board were considered as interesting by majority of delegates. Preparation kit was found quite very useful. Unfortunately, due to different reasons many chairpersons were missing Great Teambuilding or Committee Teambuilding and the session vice-presidents could not coordinate this process while president’s absence. Being a chairperson is extremely difficult task and it’s difficult to manage all the processes successfully inside the time. Many chairs omit the phase debrief the game, thereby in the Delegates’ Evaluation from we read: “Some of the games were kind of awkward and they did not really serve the purpose.” In my humble opinion every game in EYP serves its purpose if it is played right time with sufficient explanation.