- When was the Governance Task Force Established by the Board of Directors?
The Task force was established by an e-mail motion and vote in early June, 2009 as a result of the Communication Task Group’s recommendation to the Board.
- How much money will be saved by reducing the board from 14 to 10 members.
Each board position costs approximately $3000. RD positions each cost approximately $1000. The savings from these changes in the governance model would be approximately $10,000.
- CFUW is a “grassroots” organization. Shouldn’t the membership have requested the Governance Structure Review?
A Board may strike a committee to look into subjects which are of concern to it. The Board does then need the approval of the membership to implement a recommendation that would change the structure of the Board. The emergency By-Law amendment process provides the opportunity for “grassroots” members to discuss, debate and submit
amendments to the proposed amendments to ensure that any changes that are implemented do have the assent of the general membership.The driving factors in the establishing the Governance Review were member concerns that were brought to the attention of the board of directors, requirements of the CFUW Strategic Plan, economic realities and a recognition among board members of inefficiencies and unclear lines of responsibility.
- Why is the emergency By-Law amendment process being used instead of the normal By-Law Amendment process?
Emergency by-law amendments are those for which a decision must be made prior to the next Annual General Meeting. This decision must be made prior to the election for officers who will assume their positions at the close of the next Annual General Meeting. Therefore it is necessary to implement the emergency by-law amendment process.
- What are the opportunities for members to debate and amend the proposal?
The general discussion forum on the member’s section of the CFUW website has been available for discussion/debate since September 21,2009. A broadcast e-mail from the national office was sent to all presidents, CFUW Liaisons, Regional Directors; board alumni; Members at large; members of the Board of Directors and those in attendance at the 2009 AGM.
Amendments to the amendments will be accepted until November 15.
- Will the consolidation of responsibility for Advocacy under one proposed VP diminish the importance that will be given to this aspect of our Federation’s mandate?
The consolidation of responsibility under one VP of Advocacy is intended to improve and strengthen the importance of advocacy within the Federation by insuring that the Advocacy efforts are more coordinated and cohesive.
In the proposed model, the number of advocacy committees is not being reduced. The VP Advocacy will act as a coordinator of the committees to ensure that they are working where their efforts will be most effective. Committee chairs will be selected through the elections and nominations process just as they are under the current model. The VP Advocacy will work with the President and Executive Director to identify issues that need action and the appropriate response or action plan. The Advocacy committees will work under her direction to ensure that the action plans are implemented. The VPs of the Atlantic, Quebec and Prairie Regions will each become a MEMBER of one of the advocacy committees. Thus each committee will, in fact, have two representatives on the Board. As well, membership will have a committee.
- The titles of Directors have been eliminated and “Vice President of …” has been substituted. Does this mean that any one of them may be considered as candidates to follow into the presidency of the Board?
There is no change to the qualifications required to become President of CFUW. The President must have board experience prior to submitting her name to the chair of the Nominations Committee. All sitting or past members of the Board of Directors are equally qualified to run for President.
- What is being done about succession planning?
Succession planning remains as it is now. The President Elect and has 7-10 months before taking office to participate in all facets of leadership in CFUW side by side with the sitting President.
- Training has been an issue – what is being done about it?
We know that an essential part of successful succession planning and a healthy organization is appropriate training. It is one of the outstanding issues identified to us by the RDs when we consulted them about this model. We will have a Training Committee, comprised of all the VPs which will have, as its mandate, to develop and put mechanisms in place to
ensure this training of RDs and Club presidents – as required and appropriate. - Why the rush?
Any change in the make-up of the Board of Directors and regional director complement must be adopted in time for national elections. In order to be implemented for the 2010-2012 term, the structure change must be adopted before elections can take place. Changes adopted after the election would not take affect until 2012.
- Was there any consultation in this model?
Knowing the importance of this issue, the group making the recommendations consulted extensively with the RDs, many of whom spoke about the concerns of their Clubs. A professional board consultant report and presentation to the Board, in 2004, along with a member survey pointed to the same issues that this model addresses: better communication, more efficiency, less spending at the Core, more accountability, more sensitivity to Regional and Club concerns.
- What about the RDs?
There will be two RDs added – both in the areas where there is the most growth: Ontario and BC. We believe the RDs are the backbone of the organization and they will have quarterly conference calls so that they can better and more quickly learn what is happening in each other’s Regions. They will be supported by the Training Committee.
