In order to free more time for break-out sessions in smaller groups and parallel sessions for different themes - as well as the shortening of AIM of one day this year - less and less sessions are reserved for the board to meet - which all seems logical and a move towards a more efficient meeting. But then, more and more important decisions are happening behind closed doors, and the trustees are only presented the results to approve. Even the ton of new committees that were created in the past years could be seen as a trend to delegate decisions from the board into small teams.
There's a German word for people in organizations, that do nothing but vote - and it's "Stimmvieh" - the literal translation would be "voting cattle" - brainless individuals who are held just to get the voting job done.
So, I'd like to propose, instead of changing AIM around an inefficient structure, why not change the inefficient structure itself: How about a board of trustees that represent regions instead of countries? How about scheduling "debating" sessions, where certain trustees would come up on a speaker's list to voice their opinion in order to regenerate a discussion culture in the board. I think there are even more things to come up with, but reducing trustees to "Stimmvieh" is probably not the right way to increase efficiency.
(I do guess that the Organizational Review team is already tackling this issue...)
i agree that the board of trustees structure is not efficient and we should change it, but i think a lot of the problems we have with it (ie few people talking etc) could be changed by how the board works, i think discussions would be a lot livelier if it wasnt organised in a big circle of tables with microfones but more informally.
ReplyDeletei think my problem with taking away the structure alltogether is legitimisation of decisions you know? the regional thing might work but then each region would have to have a different amount of votes (because of size and strenght, only to be fair) which would feel very legitimate or fair in the end either...
Paul, I think we're both thinking in the say direction. There's no way around having a decision making body that represent the NAs in some way. So we should have it - yet a better one. Another option would be to extend the trustees' terms to four years - which could make the board more mature. There should also be - and I think it is planned - trustee training, so that whoever takes over this job is better prepared.
ReplyDeleteI agree that regional representation could be difficult - but it should be discussed how at all the board could be smaller - to improve the way it works and of course save money! I would guess a participation at AIM from the trustee of let's say Faroe Islands would be about as high as their annual income from their members...
just a thought - doesn't having less board-time and more smallgroup events during aim also give more trustees the possibility to actually be in a committee/smallgroup and thus be part of the decision making process in this way?
ReplyDeletei have no idea, how it looks in reality, but this could be true no?
As a former trustee, I'd rather see the Board stripped to just Board members (EEC, Trustees, IJRs, SG) and have these meetings more focused and less distractions (speeches, parties, "fun" or "educative" workshops/sessions etc.), so the Board a.) knows itself better, therefor b.) is more comfortable to talk and c.) can focus on what its actual job is: making decisions, controlling, discussing and approving plans. And be really democratic at the same time.
ReplyDeleteAfraid of the comeback of the idea of substituting countries for regions in the only forum an NA can actually talk (in an inefficient structure I agree, but nevertheless be heard). Regions do not represent chapters or the diversity of countries. Regions go for standardisation, enough of which I think we have seen in CISV. If regions take over, the gap between local chapters and Cisv International will keep being wider and wider and then the people who think CISV International is something alien to chapter work and a useless way of wasting money which only interacts with them to tell them what to do and give orders will start to be right. For many NA´s Aim is important, being part of the Board is important. Having the right to bring up motions regardless what their neighbour NA thinks is important. Fight trustees not becoming Stimmvieh, but what they really are: NA reps. Many of them actually are, or used to be 4 years ago and they do represent a lot of volunteers back home
ReplyDeleteI wish I could "like" or "plus one" Elenita there....
ReplyDelete@flo, correct me if im wrong but it sounds like your idea is having a seperate meeting for trustees, where they will only be talking about motions and voting on them correct? i think seperating the board of trustess from the rest of aim would be a big step back, most discussions happen during coffeebreaks, with observers or during parties, mostly there, where they arent "supposed" to happen... and having these 3rd person opinions there goes a long way to connecting trustees decissions to the rest of the organisation, which to me is vital in order for the organisation to adapt to the trustees decissions and not feel like the board is alien to the rest of the organisation as elena put it
ReplyDelete@elena i agree that the structure we have right now ideally empowers every country to contribute to the decision-making-process yet in reality i think most discussions in the board are between 7-10 countries with the most experienced trustees, the iec and some of the chairs if the discussion happens to touch their field of expertise... i think the structure we have right now is very intimidating especially to smaller countries, a more informal circle, where people can chat without pressing a button to enable their microfone, that is organised in a way that the focuse is on discussion rather than obeying rules to have a discussion would go a long way, if u get what i mean
Just a small perspective from last AIM, I believe the trustees had excellent meetings when they were not on the table!: Meaning, a lot of the discussion took place after the session formally, and sitting down in the middle of the room in the floor! with experienced trustees but also the new ones giving feed back! how ever! the training for a trustee is really important: and we do not have it at all! Even in countries with incoming trustee! its just scary as hell the amount of information you as trustee need to handle to be a good trustee!
ReplyDelete