ECF Governance Review?
Posted: Sun Feb 23, 2014 2:06 pm
I couldn't help but reflect that the ECF finds itself in a situation that just wouldn't be possible in "normal," Corporate Organisations.
In most Organisations if the Chairman (President) or another senior figure fails a confidence vote, they stand down. (The semantics of exactly what form of vote this was are some-what by the by, given the intent was pretty clear.) Frankly few Presidents would want to go on in such circumstances, albeit in the private sector they do of course get better compensated for stepping aside. I would suggest that the ECF look at the following...
1. The conditions somebody is agreed to have signed up to when they stand for a Board seat. (i.e. the circumstances in which they can be removed and the proper processes for so doing.)
2. What are the roles and responsibilities that go with doing the roles?? (e.g. perhaps we need a more formal whistle blower process and a clearer understanding as to the degree of discretion members have in terms of doing things without full Board approval.) It could be a lot of what's happened is down to these mechanisms not being in place/ not being clear enough. I've noticed the comments in previous threads on the way in which meetings were Chaired etc - fixing stuff like this isn't usually rocket science.
1 and 2 are really about defining the "Contracts" and associated processes that go with these seats more clearly than is the case today.
Governance reviews of course cost money, but it looks like there is something here that needs to be at least reviewed, if not fixed - what do others think? If, however, members think this is all fine, how have we ended up in the current position?
(By the by - Corporate Governance policies should seek to protect whistle-blowers, so personally I see Nigel's position as very different to Andrew's and have a lot more sympathy for him.) That said - this post is really aimed at discussing the Governance issues, rather than the people involved, many of whom I know and have a high regard for.
What do members think?
In most Organisations if the Chairman (President) or another senior figure fails a confidence vote, they stand down. (The semantics of exactly what form of vote this was are some-what by the by, given the intent was pretty clear.) Frankly few Presidents would want to go on in such circumstances, albeit in the private sector they do of course get better compensated for stepping aside. I would suggest that the ECF look at the following...
1. The conditions somebody is agreed to have signed up to when they stand for a Board seat. (i.e. the circumstances in which they can be removed and the proper processes for so doing.)
2. What are the roles and responsibilities that go with doing the roles?? (e.g. perhaps we need a more formal whistle blower process and a clearer understanding as to the degree of discretion members have in terms of doing things without full Board approval.) It could be a lot of what's happened is down to these mechanisms not being in place/ not being clear enough. I've noticed the comments in previous threads on the way in which meetings were Chaired etc - fixing stuff like this isn't usually rocket science.
1 and 2 are really about defining the "Contracts" and associated processes that go with these seats more clearly than is the case today.
Governance reviews of course cost money, but it looks like there is something here that needs to be at least reviewed, if not fixed - what do others think? If, however, members think this is all fine, how have we ended up in the current position?
(By the by - Corporate Governance policies should seek to protect whistle-blowers, so personally I see Nigel's position as very different to Andrew's and have a lot more sympathy for him.) That said - this post is really aimed at discussing the Governance issues, rather than the people involved, many of whom I know and have a high regard for.
What do members think?