News & Notes 866:From the FAMC re Roma's Kitchen Appeal Process

From Auroville Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
866 icon.jpg   News & Notes 866
17 April 2021


From the FAMC re Roma’s Kitchen Appeal Process


In reference to the appeal brought forward against the decision of the FAMC in finding and allocating a new management team for Roma’s Kitchen, the Appeal Body has found that the FAMC decision in this matter is invalid. The decision of the Appeal Body was based on their finding a number of what they have referred to as “weaknesses and flaws” committed during the process conducted by the FAMC, which form the basis for many potential learning points for the FAMC when conducting similar processes in future. The FAMC has resolved to take this feedback into consideration for the future.

Despite the flaws & weaknesses, the ultimate outcome of the process is accepted by all involved, and in light of the fact that the two other qualified and short-listed parties have withdrawn their interest, the Appeal Body has recommended the FAMC to take a new decision that Gumsoon and Thulasingam be allowed to take over the management of Roma’s Kitchen. In accordance with this recommendation, the FAMC has decided that Gumsoon and Thulasingam will be allowed to take over management of Roma’s Kitchen, to realize their project proposal for a Korean food restaurant.

Please find below the list of potential learning points which have been identified together by the FAMC and the Appeal Body when conducting similar processes in the future.

~ Sincerely,
FAMC (Funds and Assets Management Committee)
Amy, Angelo, Jonas, Kalya, Lisa, Marc, Palani, Ranjith, Stephan


Learning Points:

  1. The issue of units with only one executive should be looked into to assure unit stability and adequate transition/ succession planning.
  2. Close collaboration between the FAMC and the Trustees of the Trust under which any unit operates should be maintained.
  3. Any criteria that will be considered during similar selection processes should be shared with the applicants.
  4. Any financial considerations/ criteria (such as outstanding liabilities to be covered) should be disclosed transparently.
  5. Consideration of the applicants should be made by a larger and sufficiently diverse team, including Trustees and transparently chosen representatives of the community at large.
  6. Ways of rating of applicants should be well prepared and properly designed.
  7. Selection team members should be present at all interviews/ meetings for which their input is required.
  8. Involve L’Avenir in assessing the technical aspects and costs involved.
  9. During an open selection process, an “open house” day should be held so all applicants have a chance to visit the place and see for themselves what it implies for them to take over the unit/ asset.
  10. The community and direct neighbors of the unit/ asset should be included in the process and their feedback should be solicited and integrated when justified.
  11. Any voting process should be transparent and sufficiently minuted.
  12. Decisions should be communicated to the applicants personally whenever feasible.
  13. Notice should be given to selected applicants that there is a term of 30 days in which an appeal may be filed. Decisions should be held in abeyance until such time has passed.