3.3.3.2 The various roles and rights of the mentally disabled in the functioning and decision-making of the organisation

Persons with mental disabilities are recipients of mental health services that the KAE treats as a mental health unit. The mentally disabled are the beneficiaries of the psychosocial rehabilitation and integration through vocational training and employment. KAE deals with the mental health of persons with mental disabilities during training and after they had been employed. Persons with mental disabilities are commonly in need of special support from mental health professionals during complicated labour activities and in training. As one mental health professional mentioned:

As Adam notes, the emotional engagement of persons with mental disabilities with entrepreneurially risky operations is constantly demonstrated in Koispe.1 KAE in its organisational structure had developed a supportive counselling department to deal with that issue. The supporting counselling committee constituted a group of mental health professionals and doctors, e.g. psychiatrists and psychologists. The competence of the supportive counselling department was the application of psychotherapeutic processes and support, which was integrated ‘on the job’. The psychotherapeutic process entailed processes, such as psychotherapeutic assessments and monitoring of the mentally disabled. The function of the supportive counselling department was autonomous during the psychotherapeutic process. However, the department had an obligation to inform the higher levels of management and administration of the progress of the recipients of mental health services.

During the psychotherapeutic process, the supportive counselling committee did not substitute or replace the treating doctor of the mental health recipients, nor any pre-existing therapeutic framework. In particular, KAE’s supportive counselling committee had to consider the therapeutic treatment and medication of any recipient and potential trainee or employee with mental disabilities.

It subsequently referred to the administration and management of the organisation to investigate the possibility of training and eventually employment. When a candidate was confirmed as eligible to proceed to the submission of an application to KAE then a confirmation letter from the treating doctor was asked. The candidates could only then proceed with comprising part of the organisation as employees.

The vocational training of Type A members was undertaken, while employment was under way. Candidates were hired based on their professional experience and were trained for two months by professionals and assigned instructors. Following this initial training, the recipients’ working hours were increased and their performance was monitored. Supervisors and instructors supervised the entire process. One respondent mentioned that the clear rules and structured processes assisted Type A members to perform better and gain a clearer understanding of their responsibilities. It also assisted the organisation to account to the Greek Ministry of Health based on documentation and records regarding all aspects of administration and daily operation of the organisation.

KAE comprised several organisational departments including: (i) the administration; (ii) the supportive counselling committee; and (iii) the business operations. Persons with mental disabilities were employed by KAE to support positions in business operations and in administration.

At the time the interviews were conducted, KAE ran three operational projects, namely: (i) cleaning and spatial management services; (ii) shop-in-shop retail; and (iii) catering services. Each project integrated persons with mental disabilities and mental health professionals into the workplace. Koispe employees were in their majority recipients of mental health services and Type A members, i.e. 18 out of 35 employees, at the time of the interviewees. They were the beneficiaries of the psychotherapeutic on the job treatment provided by KAE.

With respect to the provision of cleaning and spatial management services, KAE developed a professional cleaning crew, which offered service to large public institutions, such as the National School of Public Health. Additionally, the organisation ran small shops within other shops (shop-in-shop retail), such as copy stores and help desks in the premises of the National School of Public Health. Finally, KAE maintained a catering service, i.e. a small canteen in the facilities of a private elderly care unit, which in return, was admitted as aType C KAE member.

Multi-stakeholder membership was found to be compulsory in the legal form of Koispe but burdensome and complex in terms of practical implementation. As one respondent mentioned, ‘we had to involve more than 100 members from three different categories A, B and C’ (2.2 interview, 13 September 2014). He thereby displayed the difficulty of bringing together a significant number of persons with diverse stakes and characteristics in an entrepreneurial accomplishment.

Additionally, some employees were not found to be members of the organisation despite being recipients of mental health services. Similarly, some Type A members were not employed by the organisation despite being recipients of mental health services. That was mainly due to their having inadequate skills. Only 18 employees were found to be Type A members out of 60 Type A members and 35 in total employees. The foregoing numeric relationship demonstrates that KAE’s objective to fulfil simultaneously the socio-economic integration of persons with mental disabilities, and assist their inclusion in the basic structures of the organisation was not successful.

One Type A member-employee mentioned that ‘it is obviously right that the employees who are not members should become members (…) once they become members, they will be able to have a voice’ (3.3 interview, 16 October 2014). However, non-member employees were also regularly invited to participate in KAE’s decision-making processes (1.1 interview, 16 October 2014). They were permitted to attend the sessions of the general meeting and had the right to express freely their opinion without the right of voting. The provided right allowed – in practice – the existing non-members-employees to participate in the governance of the organisation. They had the opportunities to acquire knowledge regarding decisions that could be made.

One Type A member who is also an employee noted – concerning those Koispe employees who were not yet admitted into membership – that they may have not as yet ‘become members because it is possibly something stressful for them’ (3.3 interview, 16 October 2014). Indeed, in doing so, he indicated once again the emotional engagement with which persons with mental disabilities carry out entrepreneurial operations.

Additionally, financial considerations determined membership according to the interviewed Type A member. In KAE’s case, the financial burden that membership entailed was a minimum of €100 for the purchase of one cooperative share (3.3 interview, 16 October 2014).

The participatory character of governance may also be another important deter-minant of membership in KAE. Participation necessarily entails more care according to the interviewed Type A member. The due care goes beyond the employment responsibilities that Type A members normally undertake as employees (3.3 interview, 16 October 2014). For instance, one respondent claimed that the general meeting was a time-consuming process which needs an entire day, or at least of four-five hours to be finalised. The process of the general meeting included a discussion of all the perspectives of the members in the organisation. As this respondent stated, ‘the members come especially in the accounting sessions and it takes time because there are discussions and questions. We spend too much time on the discussion regarding what we can do. Everybody says his or her ideas’ (3.3 interview, 16 October 2014).

KAE was governed by the basic cooperative principles of democratic and equal participation. As one Type A respondent stated that ‘No I don’t feel that I have a greater influence on the decision-making (than the others). This is because, the influence, is reflected in the vote. If everyone has the right to vote, with one vote he or she can actually vote against’ (3.3 interview, 16 October 2014). Democratic participation by means of the ‘one man, one vote’ rule was also a means for the organisation to achieve the social element of its purpose. One respondent indicatively mentioned that ‘the democratic participation of the members is a means and an end in itself’. He mentions:

The same respondent referred to the inspiring for him example of the vice- president of the Pan-Hellenic Federation of Koispe (hereafter ‘POKOISPE’), who is a person with mental disabilities (1.1 interview, 16 October 2014). However, that was not the case concerning the participation of Type A members into higher managerial positions of the KAE. Indeed, KAE’s Type A members were not allowed to appoint or to be appointed in the higher managerial positions of the organisation, e.g. the position of president, the vice-president, the secretary, and the treasurer of the management board, and/or in any position of the supervisory board. As such, KAE’s Type A members who constituted a majority among the members in the organisation, had a lesser decision-making power in the management board. Subsequently, KAE’s Type A members were substantially deprived from exerting a certain amount of control in the organisation. They were also deprived from contributing equally and fairly to the governance of the organisation in which they had invested a significant for them financial contribution.

A respondent justified the exclusion of Type A members from the higher managerial positions by stating that it was the ‘legislator’s decision’ (2.2 interview, 13 September 2014). According to the rationale of the respondent, the legislator considered that the participation of Type A members, i.e. people who may lack legal capacity and/or judicially assisted people might be in conflict with the applicable cooperative legislation (2.2 interview, 13 September 2014). He mentioned that this is ‘a more polite way of the legislator to avoid excluding the group from the board of the Koispe and simultaneously the conflicts with the applicable legislation’ (2.2 interview, 13 September 2014).

Another respondent mentioned that ‘[a] recipient of mental health services cannot be president of the Koispe (…) [t]his is stipulated in legislation’ (1.1 interview, 16 October 2014) with which the organisation should comply. Consequently, it is understood that the provisions of the Mental Health Services Law of 1999 are perceived by these two respondents as those impeding Type A members from the equal enjoyment of rights and their fair participation in the governance of the organisation.