This essay explores certain situations within our union and suggests potential solutions. It is written as part of my reflection on our operating modes, considering the possibility of upcoming elections and my strong likelihood of being elected as President of the Institute.
In another text, I discuss the functioning and challenges of our Board of Directors (BoD) (The Functioning of the Board of Directors (2021)). Here, I’d like to elaborate on possible solutions, which I hope the next Board of Directors will consider.
This text also serves as an extended response to how I would address the issues facing the Board of Directors and the Executive Committee.
The Decision-Making Process
Our union is a non-partisan organization; we do not support any political party in Canada. Unlike other federal unions, we do not endorse any party but instead inform our members about issues related to the electoral platforms of these parties. We value decision-making based on concrete facts, such as science and statistics.
However, the reality within our ranks is different. We are organized in a way that promotes affiliations by groups and regions. Our decision-making at the Board level and in our General Assemblies is biased by these structures, which present their issues and ask their members to support the group's position. For instance, at the AGM, motions are presented by constituent bodies, and members are asked to support or reject motions en bloc. Pre-AGM caucuses are set up to facilitate this political influence.
This influence also appears at the Board level. Directors are influenced by their regional executive and consider the perceived position of the members who elected them. As a result, less thought is given to the merits of the issue at hand.
Therefore, we are a political organization, even if we don't want to admit it. On the surface, we want to make fair and equitable decisions, but in reality, we are biased.
Voting: Beneficial or Divisive?
I also question the relevance of voting, of "democratic voting."
All our decision-making meetings use either the "Morin Code" or the "Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedures." Both codes recommend majority voting, i.e., 50% + 1. It's a beautiful so-called "democratic" mechanism that allows us to move forward in case of a deadlock. However, the human cost is that most of the time, there are "losers" who are dissatisfied with the result. This is not a way of functioning that encourages Win-Win results, but rather a Win-Lose system.
This mechanism encourages the formation of groups, of parties, to try to force votes one way or another. If voting members must be convinced of something beyond the facts, then it becomes a political vote.
Who Do Elected Representatives Represent?
Like many people, I question the role of Board members.
- Are we elected to represent our electorate? The Institute conducts only a few surveys per year. These surveys cover broad questions and more often on the satisfaction with our services. Therefore, we cannot say that our decisions are based on the opinion or wishes of the members. No data supports this argument.
It is often said that Board members are in contact with a significant number of members. Regional directors are more involved in local activities and are possibly closer to the members. Committees are also set up around Board members, and they are asked to participate and be in contact with members.
The reality is that Board members are surrounded by a limited circle of activists who represent only a small proportion of the electorate.
During our fall elections, candidates campaigned by listing beautiful principles and making grand promises. Again, these are not facts supporting decision-making, but political opinions, intangible and subjective. When we look at the results, the number of votes each received is only a small percentage of the electorate. What about those elected by acclamation? I cannot conclude that elected representatives represent the members.
- Are regional directors elected to represent their regions on the Board? Again, I have not heard of regular regional surveys that would allow directors to make decisions aligned with members at each Board meeting. As many Board topics are also discussed in closed sessions, it would be even more challenging to survey members. Expressions like "I know my members" or "This is what my members want" are frequently used on the Board to define the merit of a position on a decision.
One school of thought considers the role of "Regional Director" distinct from the role of "Corporate Director." A corporate director should not be influenced by regional imperatives but should focus on the corporation's national needs. Is this possible in this context?
Who Does What on the Board?
This is a big question.
A few lines in the Institute's bylaws outline the responsibilities of elected directors. A policy exists describing the roles and responsibilities of Board members in more detail. These guidelines are broad and lack depth. For executive committee members (President and Vice Presidents), the policy on working conditions and their service agreement list some additional functions, obligations, and powers.
In recent years, the presidency has issued mandate letters to Board members. These letters serve to formalize the president's expectations, distribute specific functions (called portfolios), and guide the fulfillment of these functions.
These documents are not up to date and are not adjusted according to evolving needs or changing situations caused by external or internal factors.
Several members and candidates contest the distribution of tasks by the presidency, both in terms of quantity and associated powers. There are concerns about the lack of depth of certain tasks, the non-transparency of the work done, and accountability and responsibility for functions.
Personally, I find it difficult to know who does what, who should do what, and who has done what.
There is no single public place to see the distribution of responsibilities, the progress of projects, and accomplishments.
What to Change?
Many candidates call for change, asking the Board to change, our processes to change, to stop doing things as before, and to work together in the same direction. The word "Change, Changing, Change" is used 27 times in the biographies, accompanied by urgent calls such as "The time for renewal has come" and "There is work to be done." Concrete proposals to improve the situation are limited and do not mention changing oneself.
The Institute was founded in 1920 in a completely different world. I agree that we are overdue for a paradigm shift. Since becoming Vice President, I have been examining the situation, trying to introduce changes gradually. Over the past few months, I have intensely reflected on how an organization under my direction could function, be modernized, and improved.
We need to put aside our preconceptions, rethink a new operating mode, better define everyone's roles, establish new procedures, eliminate divisions and losers. Is this possible?
New Paradigms to Consider
I believe we need to start by defining and documenting who does what.
- Roles We need to put aside job descriptions and our policies and instead develop roles. A role defines and groups a series of functions and activities that must be performed continuously. I emphasize "continuous" here because they must represent ongoing action, not a state or deliverable. Such roles can include the authority to do everything to execute this role, but they also come with responsibilities and deliverables, allowing for more transparency and accountability. Each member will be responsible for several roles.
Roles must be defined among us. This will allow us to be on the same page regarding the responsibilities associated with the role. Subsequently, if a tension is felt over something not being done or not done adequately, that member presents the situation at organizational meetings. Members seek a solution to the tension, adjust or define new roles. If something doesn't work, we quickly revise collaboratively and redistribute roles and responsibilities if necessary. This collaborative and evolving approach allows us to adapt to changes and ensures that everyone is involved and committed to achieving common goals.
-
Procedures We need to review our decision-making procedures. The 50% + 1 majority vote, while effective for breaking deadlocks, too often creates divisions. We should adopt decision-making methods by consensus or at least by consent, where a decision is accepted if there are no major objections. This approach would reduce tensions and foster more inclusive and representative decisions within the board.
-
Transparency Transparency is crucial for building trust. We need to establish clear mechanisms for accountability. This includes regularly publishing activity reports, project progress, and decisions made by the Board. An accessible platform for all members could be set up to track this information and offer continuous feedback.
-
Training and Education Being a corporate director requires specific skills. We need to offer continuous training to Board members so they understand their roles, expectations, and best practices in governance. A deep understanding of the nuances between serving the corporation and serving the electorate is essential to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure decisions aligned with the Institute's long-term interests.
-
Inclusion and Representation We need to rethink representation on the Board. Currently, the voice of bargaining groups is limited. It would be beneficial to invite group presidents to join the Board as active observers, with a pathway to gradually include their perspectives in decisions. Similarly, the representation of retirees and various employer groups should be considered to reflect the diversity of our members.
-
A Long-Term Vision Finally, we need to develop a clear and shared vision for the future of our organization. This includes 5, 10, and 20-year plans, considering future challenges and opportunities. This vision must be collaboratively developed, involving all organizational levels to ensure it is realistic, ambitious, and aligned with the Institute's values and objectives.
By adopting these new paradigms, we can transform our organization to better meet our members' needs, improve our governance, and ensure more just, transparent, and effective decision-making. This is an ambitious challenge, but necessary for us to evolve and thrive in the decades to come.
References:
