Executive Committee Proposal 30/08/03
Paper compiled from two e-mail posts to the Council list by Simon Riley . The Gov and Const Committee are adding this paper to the other papers being presented on Executive Committee versus Admin Committee with Simon's agreement.
I have pushed for a debate re role of Admin Committee vs. Exec Committee so let me table a view here.
The discussion paper, while it is a good start, does not go far enough in articulating the impact that a Exec Committee could have. For example, if we take a typical agenda for a Council meeting, what items would drop off and be handed off to an Exec Committee?
The issue of an Exec Committee should be considered more in the context of restructuring Council than just a simple name change with a beefed up terms of reference. An Exec Committee, depending on the parameters re delegated authority, has the potential to transform the way that Council operates with a flow on effect to the Committees. That is really the context that we need to be considering here.
Admin Committee with regards to InternetNZ is in fact a "Clayton's Exec Committee" - any Committee that, in terms of composition, involves almost exclusively the Officers of an organisation becomes almost by default an Exec Committee. Exec Committees all have a delegated authority that is articulated in the bylaws or constitution, usually dealing with approval and expenditure of monies, i.e. carrying on the "business of the business". Admin Committees, by contrast in my past experience with other Boards, usually have had maybe only one officer and 2-3 Board members and have worked closely with the ED on "mundane" issues - HR, budgets, office matters etc..
I have been on Boards which attempted not to employ an Exec Committee and given up because the "business of the business" simply overwhelmed the Board, resulting in very little attention being paid to policy, strategic direction etc. of the organisation. There is a fundamental test, re the value of an Exec Committee if this moves forward, for the members to consider.
Would an Exec Committee result in Council being:
- More efficient in terms use of time and resources?
- More effective in terms of decision making, policy setting etc.?
In terms of the big picture if Councillors see the value the following:
- Less meetings over the year (4-5);
- Shorter meetings;
- More time to debate issues, formulate policies;
- Less time rubber-stamping recommendations, particularly the "business of the business" e.g. budgets, contracts etc.
- More time spent re Committees
and so forth, then an Exec Committee with specific delegated authority is an option that needs to be explored more fully.
However if Councillors prefer:
- the current frequency of meetings;
- 6- 8 hr Council agendas, the majority of which is rubber stamping recommendations made elsewhere;
- Little or no time to debate issues, policies at the Council level (note I personally accept this is the stuff for Committees);
- the need to feel directly involved in "anything" and "everything" re Council business particularly subsidiary companies
and so forth, then an Exec Committee with specific delegated authority is not your choice.
This needs consideration and debate. I am not convinced the current context is sustainable and is dependant on a small number of Councillors putting in enormous amounts of public-good time. However given our "Marxist" approach to governance with the Society, an Exec Committee could be difficult to sell.
It would be a mistake to describe a an Exec Committee as a mini Council although I can appreciate the sentiment.
The notion of election of the membership of the Exec Committee by
Members is not at all appropriate since the majority on an Exec
Committee are Officers who are elected anyway.
An Exec Committee
is still a Committee of Council reporting to Council not unlike NZOC
which has also has a delegated authority.
Bottomline - We need to
have a structure that allows us to maximize the best use of
Councillors' time and contribution - is that the current case?
The
Gov and Const Committee are adding this paper to the other papers being
presented on Executive Committee versus Admin Committee with Simon's
agreement.
I have pushed for a debate re role of Admin Committee vs. Exec Committee so let me table a view here.
The discussion paper, while it is a good start, does not go far enough in articulating the impact that a Exec Committee could have. For example, if we take a typical agenda for a Council meeting, what items would drop off and be handed off to an Exec Committee?
The issue of an Exec Committee should be considered more in the context of restructuring Council than just a simple name change with a beefed up terms of reference. An Exec Committee, depending on the parameters re delegated authority, has the potential to transform the way that Council operates with a flow on effect to the Committees. That is really the context that we need to be considering here.
Admin Committee with regards to InternetNZ is in fact a "Clayton's Exec Committee" - any Committee that, in terms of composition, involves almost exclusively the Officers of an organisation becomes almost by default an Exec Committee. Exec Committees all have a delegated authority that is articulated in the bylaws or constitution, usually dealing with approval and expenditure of monies, i.e. carrying on the "business of the business". Admin Committees, by contrast in my past experience with other Boards, usually have had maybe only one officer and 2-3 Board members and have worked closely with the ED on "mundane" issues - HR, budgets, office matters etc..
I have been on Boards which attempted not to employ an Exec Committee and given up because the "business of the business" simply overwhelmed the Board, resulting in very little attention being paid to policy, strategic direction etc. of the organisation. There is a fundamental test, re the value of an Exec Committee if this moves forward, for the members to consider.
Would an Exec Committee result in Council being:
- More efficient in terms use of time and resources?
- More effective in terms of decision making, policy setting etc.?
In terms of the big picture if Councillors see the value the following:
- Less meetings over the year (4-5);
- Shorter meetings;
- More time to debate issues, formulate policies;
- Less time rubber-stamping recommendations, particularly the "business of the business" e.g. budgets, contracts etc.
- More time spent re Committees
and so forth, then an Exec Committee with specific delegated authority is an option that needs to be explored more fully.
However if Councillors prefer:
- the current frequency of meetings;
- 6- 8 hr Council agendas, the majority of which is rubber stamping recommendations made elsewhere;
- Little or no time to debate issues, policies at the Council level (note I personally accept this is the stuff for Committees);
- the need to feel directly involved in "anything" and "everything" re Council business particularly subsidiary companies
and so forth, then an Exec Committee with specific delegated authority is not your choice.
This needs consideration and debate. I am not convinced the current context is sustainable and is dependant on a small number of Councillors putting in enormous amounts of public-good time. However given our "Marxist" approach to governance with the Society, an Exec Committee could be difficult to sell.
It would be a mistake to describe a an Exec Committee as a mini Council although I can appreciate the sentiment.
The notion of election of the membership of the Exec Committee by
Members is not at all appropriate since the majority on an Exec
Committee are Officers who are elected anyway.
An Exec Committee
is still a Committee of Council reporting to Council not unlike NZOC
which has also has a delegated authority.
Bottomline - We need to
have a structure that allows us to maximize the best use of
Councillors' time and contribution - is that the current case?
© 2001 InternetNZ
Last updated 25 August 2003
