Jeffrey Ludwig

Member Association: Volt Germany

Gender: Male

What strategy would you implement to recruit and retain highly specialised volunteers for the functional teams, for example in communications, policy, or data, over a full Board term? 

Retaining specialised volunteers over a full Board term requires treating them less like helpers and more like professionals who happen not to be paid.
My approach has three elements. First, clarity of purpose: functional team members need to understand how their work connects to Volt's broader strategy. Vague mandates burn people out. I would push for defined workplans with realistic scopes at the start of each term.
Second, structured onboarding and handover processes. One of Volt's biggest retention problems is institutional memory loss. When specialists leave, their knowledge leaves with them. Building lightweight documentation practices into team culture from day one changes this.
Third, recognition and progression. Specialised volunteers often have professional expertise they are generously lending to Volt. They stay when they feel their contributions are visible, valued, and actually used. I would advocate for regular feedback loops between functional teams and the Board, and clearer pathways for experienced volunteers to take on greater responsibility over time.
None of this requires large resources. It requires discipline and attention from leadership. That is exactly the kind of governance culture I want to help build.

Non-executive Board members must both support and challenge the executives. Describe a situation where you would publicly back the Co-Presidents, and one where you would publicly dissent. What guides your choice?

The non-executive role only has value if it is genuinely independent. Rubber-stamping executives serves no one, least of all the Co-Presidents themselves, who need honest counterparts, not cheerleaders.
When I would publicly back the Co-Presidents: When they have made a difficult but well-reasoned decision that is facing populist pushback from within the organisation. Leadership sometimes means taking positions that are temporarily unpopular. If the Co-Presidents have followed a sound process, consulted the right stakeholders, and arrived at a defensible conclusion, they deserve visible support from the Board - not silence. Loyalty in those moments is not blind deference, it is what makes collective leadership functional.
When I would publicly dissent: When a decision or communication misrepresents the position of the broader organisation, or when a course of action risks serious harm to Volt's integrity or to its members and internal channels have failed to correct it. I experienced situations in my time as a Board member in Volt where difficult things needed to be said openly. Silence in those moments is not neutrality it is complicity.
What guides the choice: Process and proportionality. Did the decision follow legitimate internal procedures? Have concerns been raised privately first and genuinely engaged with? Public dissent is a last resort, not a first move but it must remain a real option, or the non-executive role becomes purely ceremonial.

What would you do if you believed the Board was making a decision that conflicted with Volt Europa's core values?

First, I would make sure I was right. Values conflicts are serious accusations and I would want to be certain I was not confusing a decision I disagreed with strategically for one that was genuinely incompatible with what Volt stands for. That distinction matters.
If I remained convinced there was a real conflict, my first step would be to raise it directly and explicitly within the Board, naming the specific value I believed was at stake, not just expressing general unease. Vague discomfort is easy to dismiss. A precise argument is harder to ignore.
If that did not lead to meaningful engagement, I would escalate formally to the relevant oversight bodies and document my position clearly. I would also seek dialogue with the national chapters most affected, because they have both a right to know and a legitimate voice in how this organisation governs itself.
As an absolute last resort, I would make my position public. That is a serious step with real consequences for organisational trust, which is exactly why it should not be taken lightly but also why it must remain possible.
What guides me throughout is the same principle: transparency, proportionality, and exhausting internal channels before going outside them.