One of the three can­di­dates for the Juridi­cal Com­mis­sion (JC) is Lisette Kun­st, a 24-year old law stu­dent from AEGEE-Gronin­gen. She has been a mem­ber of the Medi­a­tion Com­mis­sion for the term between Ago­ra Kyïv and Ago­ra Chisin­au, and, after a term as sub­com­mis­sion­er of the JC, she is ready to be part of it. We asked her some ques­tions to get to know her and her can­di­da­ture bet­ter right before the Ago­ra. 

Eri­ka Bet­tin: Can you please intro­duce your­self, your life in and out AEGEE, your pas­sions?
Lisette Kun­st: I am Lisette, and I’m a 24-year old law stu­dent from Gronin­gen. I have been an active mem­ber of my local for almost five years, and have orga­nized hitch­hik­ing com­pe­ti­tions, a NWM, and a pre-event for Ago­ra Enschede for my local. On the Euro­pean lev­el, I have been a mem­ber of the Medi­a­tion Com­mis­sion for the term between Ago­ra Kyïv and Ago­ra Chisin­au, and attend­ed sev­er­al Ago­rae and oth­er Euro­pean events. Besides my AEGEE life I have a gen­er­al pas­sion for trav­el­ling just about any­where, like horse rid­ing and play­ing ten­nis, try­ing out new recipes, and spend­ing time with my friends.

Why do you want to run for the Juridi­cal Com­mis­sion? What are the rel­e­vant expe­ri­ences you can bring to the table?
I am run­ning for the Juridi­cal Com­mis­sion because I enjoyed my work as a sub­com­mis­sion­er, and would like to learn, and do more for AEGEE. Besides this, I think it would be a good learn­ing expe­ri­ence to have the chance to apply my legal skills to the diverse kinds of ques­tions JC is faced with. Rel­e­vant expe­ri­ences I can bring to the table are first of all my stud­ies. I study Dutch law, with a spe­cial focus on EU and inter­na­tion­al law. Besides hav­ing expe­ri­ence work­ing with law-relat­ed issues in my stud­ies, I have been in my local JC for almost three years now. Although this is much less com­pli­cat­ed than Euro­pean lev­el advis­ing seems to be so far, it has giv­en me at least some expe­ri­ence in an advi­so­ry role by, for instance, hav­ing to fig­ure out how to improve pro­pos­als for changes in the inter­nal reg­u­la­tions of our local in a way that best suits the objec­tives of the pro­posers and con­forms to the rest of our inter­nal reg­u­la­tions and statutes. Anoth­er expe­ri­ence I think is rel­e­vant has been my work in the Medi­a­tion Com­mis­sion, where I got expe­ri­ence with work­ing on the Euro­pean lev­el of AEGEE, and on which I will elab­o­rate more lat­er. Last­ly, I have been a sub­com­mis­sion­er for JC since Sep­tem­ber. Although I still have some learn­ing to do, this expe­ri­ence will be use­ful because I have seen how JC is work­ing inter­nal­ly, what kinds of ques­tions and issues come up, and assist­ed them in their tasks, so that I have real­is­tic expec­ta­tions of the kind of work I will do.

Fol­low­ing the pro­pos­al that estab­lish that the mem­ber of the Juridi­cal com­mis­sion that joins Medi­a­tion Com­mis­sion will be appoint­ed with­in the team, giv­en your expe­ri­ence, do you think you are the most indi­cat­ed to do the task?
Even though I think I would be a suit­able per­son for the task and know what to expect in terms of things you have to deal with in the Medi­a­tion Com­mis­sion, I don’t think this ear­li­er expe­ri­ence nec­es­sar­i­ly makes me the most indi­cat­ed for it. This is because I will still need a knowl­edge trans­fer, as some things in the way they work might have changed after my term end­ed, the cas­es and DPPS imple­men­ta­tion relat­ed issues they are work­ing on will be dif­fer­ent, and their expec­ta­tions of me as part of the Medi­a­tion Com­mis­sion on behalf of JC may be dif­fer­ent than what I was used to. That being said, depend­ing on the pref­er­ence of the Medi­a­tion Com­mis­sion itself and the way we, if elect­ed, will divide our tasks, I would be very hap­py to be part of the Medi­a­tion Com­mis­sion again.

Accord­ing to you, will your expe­ri­ence as mem­ber of the Medi­a­tion Com­mis­sion be help­ful in JC? And why?
My expe­ri­ence in the Medi­a­tion Com­mis­sion has been valu­able in mul­ti­ple ways. First of all, it has been a very reward­ing and moti­vat­ing expe­ri­ence, which has con­tributed sig­nif­i­cant­ly to my deci­sion to apply for JC. Besides this, I expect that this expe­ri­ence will be help­ful towards the actu­al work we do in JC because it gave me an inside view of what work­ing on the Euro­pean lev­el is like, in the sense of show­ing the inter­nal struc­tures of AEGEE, as well as the fun and chal­lenges in inter­na­tion­al, long-dis­tance, team­work. Chal­lenges in the sense of, for exam­ple, that your per­spec­tives are all dif­fer­ent because of your dif­fer­ent back­grounds, and hav­ing to work togeth­er close­ly while liv­ing far apart. Last, it was a good exer­cise in learn­ing to see all sides to a debate, seek com­pro­mis­es and rec­on­cile dif­fer­ent per­spec­tives on issues to be able to find the best solu­tions.

You said that you want to restruc­ture the train­ing of the JC and to make them more involved. You are cur­rent­ly a sub­com­mis­sion­er. What is your expe­ri­ence regard­ing this and how would you struc­ture the work of your sub­com­mis­sion­ers?
Already say­ing I would like to restruc­ture things is a bit too much – I would like to review the way JC is cur­rent­ly work­ing with its sub­com­mis­sion­ers. This is because there are a few things I think might have been nice to know more of, or already have expe­ri­ence with before can­di­dat­ing, such as the work they do on the pro­pos­als. To me, review­ing the way of work­ing with the sub­com­mis­sion­ers would entail exam­in­ing why things are as they are now. If these deci­sions were made because some things will fea­ture enough in the KT to com­pen­sate, or because it wasn’t pos­si­ble to do more because of the work­load, then obvi­ous­ly the way of work­ing with sub­com­mis­sion­ers isn’t the thing that needs to change. How­ev­er, if it turns out things can be improved, I would like to take steps to do so.

The work of the Juridi­cal Com­mis­sion hits its pike right before the Ago­ra when pro­pos­als are pre­sent­ed. Did you col­lab­o­rate already as sub­com­mis­sion­er in the sub­mis­sion process? How would you deal with pro­posers and pro­pos­al, but also with time since many times peo­ple sub­mit last minute?
As a sub­com­mis­sion­er, I wasn’t involved in the sub­mis­sion process, or any­thing else con­cern­ing pro­pos­als, so I can’t give as detailed an answer as I would like. Gen­er­al­ly speak­ing, I’d prob­a­bly make sure to save some more of my free time for JC around the dead­lines, try to make sure to give clear and use­ful advice as ear­ly on in the pro­ce­dure as pos­si­ble, and obvi­ous­ly would make sure the pro­ce­dur­al rules for the pro­pos­als are respect­ed.

In your can­di­da­ture, as well as Veronika’s, you are speak­ing about JC data­base and the chal­lenge in hav­ing all the statutes. Can you elab­o­rate a bit and tell us what are your ideas in improv­ing the sit­u­a­tion?
This year’s JC has start­ed to more active­ly col­lect all the statutes from locals. As it is an oblig­a­tion for locals to sub­mit their statutes to JC upon chang­ing them, and hav­ing CIA com­pli­ant statutes in gen­er­al, I think it is a log­i­cal deci­sion to cre­ate a data­base that allows an overview of the statutes. JC is col­lab­o­rat­ing on it with the Net­work Com­mis­sion, who, being clos­est to the locals, can help us out there. I would obvi­ous­ly like to con­tin­ue the col­lec­tion and sub­se­quent improve­ments of local statutes dur­ing my term. In doing so I would like to take an active approach, direct­ly writ­ing to boards rather than just using mass mail­ers, try to work with locals in a con­struc­tive way, being clear on what we ask of them and why, and being avail­able, con­struc­tive and approach­able in case there are any issues, or they need help.

You said that you want to con­tin­ue the work and the team spir­it of the pre­vi­ous com­mis­sion. What would you like to keep? And what would you like to change/improve?
To me, the way of work­ing as a team is incred­i­bly impor­tant, not just because good team­work improves the accu­ra­cy and effi­cien­cy of the work, but also because I think work­ing in JC itself becomes a more reward­ing expe­ri­ence for every­one if you can work in a team you get along with well. Any ideas I would have for con­tin­u­ing the work and team spir­it of the cur­rent Com­mis­sion are prob­a­bly not real­ly rad­i­cal ideas, or real changes from how the cur­rent JC did their team­build­ing. The cur­rent JC seems to work togeth­er real­ly well, and a work­ing rela­tion­ship like the one they have is what I would like the new team to strive for. It would be too ear­ly to say what I’d want to change, because every team is dif­fer­ent and has dif­fer­ent needs in terms of build­ing team and work­ing spir­it; some groups need to work on this more than oth­ers depend­ing on how they get along from a start­ing point. So some things will prob­a­bly be dif­fer­ent from how the pre­vi­ous JC did it, but it’s too ear­ly to say exact­ly what, because it heav­i­ly depends on what we think we would need to work well as a team, and obvi­ous­ly also on the pref­er­ences of the oth­er can­di­dates.

Why should peo­ple vote for you?
Because I’m very moti­vat­ed to be part of JC, and want to do a good job at any­thing I do. In this case I want to learn a lot, and be able to use the skills I have and will acquire to make a real con­tri­bu­tion to the work of AEGEE.

You can read her full can­di­da­ture here.

Check also the inter­views with the oth­er two can­di­dates for Juridi­cal Com­mis­sion: Giuseppe Aquili­no, AEGEE-Cata­nia, and Veroni­ka Chmelárová, AEGEE-Berlin


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.