Cnigem 3 June godfathers meeting report

Le CNIGEM n’ayant toujours pas publié le Compte rendu de la réunion des parrains de GEM qui a eu lieu le 3 juin nous la publions dans sa version pirate telle que nous l’ont fait parvenir les services étrangers. C’est bien connu la NSA s’est toujours passionnée pour la CNSA et ses affidés. Il en ressort notamment que l’Unafam va changer de doctrine. Elle qui prônait jusque le recours à un gestionnaire, devant les abus constatés lors de de la crise Covid va désormais militer pour l’autonomie de gestion des GEM. Pour notre part nous nous étonnons de l’étonnement de l’Unafam : le fait que les gestionnaires considérent les gémeurs comme de grand enfants n’est pas nouveau, même s’ils le font de différente manière que les familles d’usagers.


visio-meeting between referents/sponsors of GEM from 6 Regions
We were 10 referrals from 6 regions:    
– 3 from Occitania:
– 2 from New Aquitaine:
– 1 from the Great East:
 – 1 from the Pays de Loire 
– 1 from Auvergne Rhône Alpes – 2 from Ile de France :
a) on deconfinement in the GEMs 
* The GEMs are gradually restarting. The mask is mandatory at the entrance (provided by the ARS in New Aquitaine, by the town hall, by the manager (Falret,…), by the Gemmeurs,…)
* The respect of the rules leads to limit the entries to 10 persons, therefore to alternate the entry authorizations (1 day out of 2, morning or afternoon, …)
* the adherents (”gemmers”) are very happy to come back: ”we couldn’t hold on any longer!”  – “I couldn’t take it anymore”. The opening in alternation reinforces the desire of the GEM
* there were often “GEM outside the walls”:
. exchanges by whatsapp,
              . in a GEM the treasury allowed to buy smartphones for those who didn’t have one,
               . food deliveries have been made to some of the more isolated Gemmers
               . meetings took place between Gemmeurs in the green spaces, with
weather permitting
               . such a facilitator favours activities that do not pose a problem of
contact: coffee-philo shops for example

b) on our action within the GEMs sponsored by our Delegations
We all found out together:
– A need for support by us of many animators: they are often in pain, especially lately (one manager has “re-flagged” the animators in other functions of their medico-social organization, another has criticized the animator for not following isolated cases enough,…).
As sponsors, we have to ask for regulations for the facilitators = talking groups between them with the help of a shrink, in a framework independent of the manager, so that the discussion can really be freed up, if there is tension between the salaried facilitator and his employer-manager.
– A need for financial transparency between managers and GEM: the 79.000 € must be paid to the GEM in a specific account of the GEM and not to the manager (New Specifications).
.           One manager says: ”we put this year’s surplus aside in a separate account, and we will see what happens next” => we have to ask for the use of the funds for GEM.
.           Such a departmental delegation of the ARS says: ”as long as the accounts are balanced, we, ARS, do not have to look further”. => NO!
.           Conversely, several of us help “their” GEM to obtain the manager’s details. Our presence at the GEM Board and not only at the GA is useful for this.
.           In a GEM that has chosen self-management, the referent has helped the GEM to find the accounting firm that draws up the pay slips of the animators and calculates the payments to the social organizations; this firm is in transparency with him. This is undoubtedly a formula to be proposed in some of our GEMs.

On these two points among others, we have a useful role to play as referents for our Delegation which has signed a Sponsorship Agreement with the GEM, an agreement in which it is normal to indicate who the Unafam volunteer is who is the referent. In Occitania, changes of referent are the subject of an amendment to the Convention, with designation of the new referent.

Once again, this face-to-face exchange proved to be efficient and convivial, and we agreed to start again at the beginning of the school year. As facilitator, I was careful to limit it to one hour ½ , which is the right length for this type of meeting, which is more than that since there is no room reservation or travel time.

2° Exchangein visiomeeting (anonymized by respect of the participants)
– GEM of xxx – 55 members and a dynamic office (xxx) 
– the annual funds (about 79.000 €) arrive at the managing CCAS and not on the GEM account. There is a lack of transparency on the use of these funds.
– The animators have been put on short-time work until April 22nd. Housed in the premises of the Social Action Centre, the manager, they are heavily dependent on him.
– GEM of xxx (15 members)- GEM of xxx (6 members, because new) (xxx and yyy)
– There is a dichotomy between the manager (xxx with a new Director who wants to solve xxx’s financial problems), and the facilitator who is therefore in distress. The head of department of xxx used to be in charge of offenders, and therefore has little knowledge of what it means to be in charge of a group of offenders.

– GEM of zzz (50 members) GEM of vvv (25 members) GEM of www (20 members)
Xxx replaced the former manager two years ago. They have understood well what a GEM is; the facilitators are very happy. During the confinement, there were mutual calls between facilitators and members (teleworking) and calls between members.
– GEM of ttt (30 members) GEM of uuu (60 members) GEM of vvv 20 members) GEM of www which is being relaunched (30 members) (xxx)
– Uuu and ttt: the former manager charged 15% management fees, far from the stipulated 7% limit. The coordinator of the new manager (xxx) has difficulty understanding that decisions have to be made by the Bureau or the GEM Board. As a result, the facilitators are in arrears: they have been recruited and “formatted” to be under the hierarchical responsibility of the xxx coordinator in the spirit of xxx. Basically: ”you on the Board, you are subject to your moods, we can’t rely on you too much”. Facilitators have a hard time dealing with contradictory impulses between those of the EME Bureau and those of the xxx hierarchy, or arbitrate in favour of their employer who recruited them and bring them together in meetings between xxx facilitators.
– vvv and www: www chose to be with standalone management, vvv with xxx management

A concluding essay of this fruitful exchange, mainly on the suffering facilitators
As sponsors, we are also responsible when the facilitators are in distress, tended between the spirit of GEM which aims at empowering Gemmeurs and having the office take charge of GEM, and the spirit of their managing employer who considers GEM as one of the services of their structured, hierarchical organization, with an essentially health purpose.
What can we do?
– Consider that this tension is part of an evolution that will take time
– Don’t give up: make an appointment with the leaders (to see with them in a cordial dialogue how the coordinators of the facilitators can evolve and start to act as one should do in a GEM. Tell them that if not, we as sponsors will have to demand changes.
– If the medico-social workers continue to consider the GEMs as services of their structure (see if this is the case in the annual reports of vvv and xxx), we will be led to recommend this formula which goes towards the empowerment of the GEMs’ bodies.

(Visited 3 times, 1 visits today)

Lien Permanent pour cet article :

Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse de messagerie ne sera pas publiée.