Tudor, this post made me sad. I’d say Dave’s wrong in stating that the Board is fractured - in fact, I think I can qualify that quite well. We haven’t reached the level of split that has happened in the past, and if there is a fracture, it only involved 2 or 3 Directors (and may be pushed by themselves)

However, the rubber stamp aspect is most certainly one I’d like to address this year. I don’t feel it’s too ambitious to address it either, especially with the strategy I’m considering. I’m working on reviewing the system and it’s structure in a committee that I chair, but the overall Board power is something that needs to be considered. The reality of it is (and this is the same in any not-for-profit corporation anywhere) that the Board tries to get itself too operationally involved (hence putting the corporation ahead of the students) and doesn’t strategize enough. This comes from not having enough information before or during a Board meeting, wanting to feel like one has done something, and the overall negative experience that a Director faces in their position. What I’m aiming to do is to have the board pursue more of a policy management approach - have the Directors provided with ample information (ideally, more than ample information) so that they can make an overall strategy or approach on say… special needs. The Board will come up with what the goals are, and maybe a couple of ways to accomplish those goals. They will then direct the Management Committee to do things which would accomplish these goals, thus allowing the Board to be proactive and allowing the Management Committee to run the day-to-day operations.

Will everyone on the Board be receptive to this? No, probably not - this is a little different than the position some Directors ran for. However, by implementing this (along with a yearly schedule of what policies are to be discussed, etc, etc.), we’re taking large steps in improving both a Director’s role in the corporation, as well as improving their experience.

Thoughts?

(cross-posted to www.whinereack.com)

Oh, and as I just wanted to add: as a member of the MC, I am doing everything in my power to ensure things aren’t being hidden from Directors. We will not be leaving Directors “purposefully uninformed”

HA! that sounds like a lot of jibba jabba and I’ll believe its effectiveness when I see it. (cynical yes, but rightly so I think).

While my post makes you sad, you haven’t really contradicted any of the things I said. Directors become split off from the group BECAUSE they feel crippled in performing their duties by the MC (I know I did). You largely reaffirmed what the board is currently a rubberstamping tool. Why wouldn’t directors (who for the most part are intelligent and capable individuals) be pissed off at being used as rubberstamps?

As for the “too operational” nonsense, that’s the excuse the MC always uses to justify their actions: everything from kicking underagers out of the Turret to volunteer fees are “procedural matters that don’t require the board’s input.” From my experience, the MC gets itself too “directorially involved” (to use your phrasing) — they act as the ultimate decision-making body in the organization, which they are not. Thus, last year the MC surprised the board with a number of significant policy changes — some of these changes didn’t even go through any of the proper committees before being rubberstamped.

And don’t tell me about how other non-profit corporations work - I’m working with non-profits this summer and none of the organizations I’ve encountered are as fucked up as WLUSU. Indeed, most small-scale non-profits don’t even have a “management committee” - they have some executive positions like treasurer (elected from within the body of the board) to perform specialized tasks. In none of the boards I’ve looked at do bureaucrats (i.e. most of the management committee) act as the ultimate decision making body for the organization.

The thing that makes me sad is that I know that most of the people within the board room are capable and honest — they want to be there and make a difference. I know that the MC is trying to accomplish meaningful things. And I’m sure you’re doing a hell of a job to ensure things aren’t hidden from directors. However, at the end of the day the system is still fucked up. The power and information imbalance is still going to be there and it’s going to be left unaddressed.

Jibba jabba indeed, Sherry. Dan sounds like he’s spouting a load of MC-approved hogwash. The divide in WLUSU goes a bit like this: the MC is procedurally and operationally handcuffed, that is, they need to consider the needs of the corporation before any ambitious changes can be tackled. Furthermore, their time is limited, so not everything they want to do can be accomplished. The second half of this equation is its polar opposite: the BOD is ambitious and has great ideas, but doesn’t have the information, support, or resources to make it happen. As the months go by, watch every promise a director made to get elected disappear from their list of things to do.

The MC resents the BOD’s ambition, and the BOD resents the MC’s footdragging and reality-bound solutions (sure, cheaper food sounds good, but when you’re putting together a budget, it’s more difficult to work out).

Nothing will change, which is why I’ve been trying so goddamn hard to get Dave (and not just Dave) to just throw in the WLUSU “I get drunk with first years and all my friends are on Foot Patrol” towel and do something productive this year. There is no way in hell that sitting in weekly meetings, bored, and making no difference whatsoever, is a worthwhile pursuit for a student leader with even a teaspoon of creativity in them (and half a brain).

I did not say the Board was fractured; I did not say $300 000 was magically disappeared; I did not say the Management Committee is overstepping its boundaries; I did not say that elected officials are thinking more about the corporation than the students.

These are Tudor’s interpretations. I can see where he’s coming from; in fact, I know where he’s coming from, because I was there with him on last year’s Board.

Do I agree with Tudor?

I do believe that personality conflicts are starting to creep into the Board’s decision-making process and are taking up time we should be using to discuss WLUSU’s personality.

The 2004-05 VP Finance projected a $300 000 surplus for this year. This year’s budget projects a very small surplus (less than $10K). I know that $50 000 was donated to bursaries and $80 000 is being paid as loan principal. But I think this year’s budget underestimates revenues we will bring in with our business operations. I don’t think this was done intentionally, it’s merely an effect of conservative accounting.

I think the Board’s relationship to the Management Committee has not changed much from last year. This is not a slight against any of its members, I can honestly say that I like them and the work they are doing quite a lot. But I have not noticed much of a procedural difference yet between this year and last year. Things are still brought to the Board level already decided.

Dan, you have to understand that a lot of the things we’re doing this year, we did last year. We had a Board retreat and we discussed things we wanted to see as goals for WLUSU. Some of these things happened, but for the most part, things stayed the same as always. I’m not saying that this year we are doomed to repeat this fate, but if we don’t fix the problems we faced last year — namely, the relationship between the Board and the MC — it is likely that nothing will change.

Umm … Dave is right. The post above is mostly my reading/opinon of events. If these were Dave’s opinions, they’d be on his blog :). Sorry for any confussions.

I’m confused, Tudor. I read so many politics blogs and there’s no mention of pro/con Bush/Kerry.

Dan, your optimism (and oversimplicity) is definately what someone in your position has to have to remain sane. Don’t worry, you’ll become disenchanted soon enough - especially if you listen to people like us…

Anyway, your operational/policy management divide sounds nice in a post, but these two will clash over and over again. Like Tudor pointed out, Underage policy last year was just one such clash between what is ‘procedural’ and what is ‘policy’. The issues will never be divided so cleanly - and even when they are divided, people on both the MC and BOD will try and blur the distinction because they disagree with the other’s decision.

In alot of ways, the MC can be better situated to run WLUSU since they usually have a lot more experience than the average director. At the same time, that Fiefdom argument (rightly) comes up and people like Welker start taking ‘ownership’ of all things WLUSU (ie. breaking WLUSU policies).

Good Luck Dan, I remember thinking that change could come in a year too…

I’ve commented on the new WLUSU budget (& process), here.

I’m going to try to respond to everyone who replied, but I’m going to make a general statement first: it seems like you all believe that I have become one with the MC - I’ve drunk the koolaid, if you will. Let me tell you that’s not the case. I recognize that I have a role on the MC because of my role with the Board, and I recognize the importance of a) my role as a check on the MC and b) the Board in this organization. This is not “MC-approved hogwash”, these are ideas that I have to attempt to improve WLUSU and the experience for Directors. Policy-management works in a number of different locations; there’s no reason why it can’t work here. That said, on to the posts:

Sherry: That’s how I would like you to think - being a cynic will keep those who are working towards change on their tasks (as the cynic will tell them that they can’t do it, or that it’s impossible.) By all means, be cynical - keep me in check.

Tudor: I agree with your point why Directors feel split off - in fact, we’re arguing the same thing here. We both recognize the usage of the Board as a rubber-stamping mechanism; this is one way to work towards changing that. I can’t speak to last year’s MC, as I was not privy to those discussions, but under my system, in your Turret example, the Board would’ve come up with a strategy on underage access, or something very similar. Staff (which includes VPs) would’ve made a presentation on the issues, and then the Board would discuss it at length. (Also, volunteer fee cuts happened at the Board level this year.) I wish you had more faith in me and my ability to work towards this change, but I understand your reason to not have it. As far as other non-profits go, I’ve also worked with my share (as well as profit-making bodies), and my experiences have shown me other, worse sides (such as management controlling elections, for example). WLUSU may struggle with the representative aspect, but it is far from the worst system I’ve seen. I’d also argue that the level of decisions being made in other not-for-profit boards aren’t the same as those in WLUSU, as a lot of not-for-profits don’t run profit centres like we do, but that’s a different discussion for another day.

Borelli: Mike, I understand your history with WLUSU, and I’m sure that what you’ve said has been relevant before, but I resent the way you’ve attempted to paint me and the organization here. I’d agree that not everything will get done - however, my goal is to have the Board provided with the information and resources that they need to both accomplish their projects, as well as to make proper decisions keeping the students in mind. I don’t think nothing will change, and I am confident that a lot of great things will come out of both the Board and the organization this year.

David: Those completely were Tudor’s interpretations, and I should’ve taken them with a grain of salt. Moving on to what you’ve discussed, I agree that personality conflicts are getting in the way, and am doing what I can to try to prevent that (but I can’t make any guarentees.) As most accountants will tell you, conservative accounting (without being plain wrong) is what you should do. Perhaps what should be done in the future is to have a presentation (or the presence) from the Comptroller, as someone with an actual accounting designation they’d be the most qualified to analyze the data. As far as relationships go, I see two major problems, both of which I’m concerned about and will do what I can to fix. I’m not going to go into details here, but you know what I’m talking about. You know how much I don’t like the “last year” argument, so I’m not going to rehash that.

Bryn: I hope I don’t become disenchanted (merely jaded would suit me), but I understand that the possibility exists. The problem with the examples that you and Tudor have brought up is that they were taken about in the wrong order - i.e. the procedural stuff would done before the policy. In an ideal system, if someone on the MC wanted to institute a change like this, they’d make a presentation to the Board first (giving them the required data), allow the Board to come up with policy (while keeping the students in mind), and then authorizing the MC to move forward on procedures. The MC should almost certainly be the one carrying out the procedures (as they are the ones with more experience), but initiating new ones? That’s something that requires Board input.

I’ll end with this - this is something I care deeply about. I’m not going to limit this to a year - whether inside or outside of the corporation, I will push for these sorts of changes until I’ve left the school. If they haven’t happened until then, then you can call me a failure and full of hogwash.

Until then, just give me a chance.

You have ONE chance. ;)

Sounds like you’ve got some great ideas. I look forward to seeing what the Representation Committee comes up with.

I forgot how beautiful this site was… I want it…

I’ve been holding off responding to this topic, but I think I’ll weigh in briefly. One of the ideas discussed by Koivu and a few others was of what sort of decisions should come to the board and what sort of decision should be made by management. I happen to think most of the time it is fairly obvious which level of the organization should be dealing with decisions. For example, compensation for the chair and vice chair is clearly a board level decision. The decision to allow underagers in the Turret is another clear board decision. The two factors in this issue are representation (something that must always fall upon the Board) and risk management.

The second issue I would like to address is the issue of the WLUSU budget being too conservative in its budget forecasts. This issue is one that can and should be addressed at a board level. It is clear that the decision was made to be conservative in budget projections. However, these numbers have crossed the line from a conservative budget to an unrealistic budget. I did a thorough comparison to last years conservative budget projections and found that our profit centers are projecting numbers down over 150k from last years budget.

Some may say who cares if the numbers are too conservative. While the problem with these numbers is they cost student’s $50,000. I brought forward an amendment to increase bursaries by $50k. The board voted this down with the main reason being the surplus would be depleted. I made this motion because I was confident WLUSU has more than enough of a surplus to safely make this move. The budget numbers said otherwise.

The other problem with these numbers is if you believe them the board should be having a discussion on how we are using our space. If these numbers are taken as accurate WLUSU would be better off finding an outside company to take over Pizza Pizza as the rent revenue should far exceed our budgeted profit.

Dan, just a notsoquick response before I forget:

It’s nothing particularly against you (personally), but as Ray so eloquently told Ricky, “That’s the fucking way she goes.” Things get said, things sometimes get done. It’s the nature of student politics (and politics in general, i asume).

I would love to see the list of things you want to accomplish, written in stone now, and then in 8 months we’ll look’er over. Assuming that they’re not noteably unambitious (i.e. I promise to charge students money and give them sub-par value for said money), I would be very impressed if you manage to get 50% of them done to a satisfactory level.

Swallowing the koolaid eh? You stole the words right out of my mouth. Being on the MC is tense. Tension between honouring the personal relationships you build with other MCers, and honouring the promises you made to yourself, and students on their behalf. Not everything will get done with a smile.

Relevant before, yes. Relevant forever, arguably, yes. Ask Stirling (director of the year 2001-02) about his experience. Ask Sean Geobey why he never ran for WLUSU (asshole got us to run instead). There are two of the brightest, most creative people I know (and if you don’t take my word for it, their academic careers speak for themselves), and they will make similar arguments to me. They know how the organization runs, often they learned it firsthand. Often it was painful.

You’re new, you’re bright eyed, and you’re on the MC. You are meant to defend the organzation. General psychology would predict that, the organizational principles of WLUSU can make up the rest of the error. I’m a big Habermas fan (mostly). Let’s see: People—>People interactiing—>People construct rules and methods of acting that facilitate action—>Those rules become structure—>That structure constrains actors—>Actors reconsctruct structure, undoubtably, but they will always have to act within the structure in order for their actions to be mutually interpretable.

Try restructuring things and you’re bound to hit resistance. My mistake was that I assumed things could change quickly. You’re only there for four years, probably less with WLUSU. Good luck.

Ah, WLUSU.

Well I also want to weigh in here on the policy vs. operation schtick. Frankly, policy is not as important to most organizations as is the method of interpreting and executing the policies.

As has happened in the past, those on the operations side can badger and cajole the policy-makers (in this case, the Board) into creating vague and toothless policy that can then be interpreted a thousand different ways. I honestly don’t see how further defining roles would change a thing with the Board dynamics. Indeed, further positioning the role of the Board as purely policy would just serve to make it completely irrelevant.

What really needs to happen is a structural change of some sort. The Board needs to be able to have the information they need in order to make the operational decisions. The President should merely serve in an emergency capacity and should take care of the mundane tasks of the corporation up to a particular proscribed limit.

WLUSU should just drop its bullshit pseudo-democratic system and simply elect the MC instead of directors. That would give the VPs accountability and would eradicate the clandestine nature of the VP hiring process. Perhaps this way there may be a strong contingent of people who actually care on the MC (excluding Dan, of course: I know you care, but the hive mind has a strong pull regardless of your assertions otherwise), since anyone would be free to run for any positions. Also, WLUSU would probably lose all the waste-of-space directors that only serve to aggravate situations.