[governance] Nomcom recommendations from this year and other considerations

[Ian Peter]

As someone who by circumstance I think has been involved in more IGC nomcoms
than anyone else I wanted to respond to the recommendations made by the
recent Nomcom, and also to make some further suggestions.

As background ­ this years MAG nominations were conducted in extremely
difficult circumstances. The period of notice to provide nominations was not
only short, but it was over a holiday period when many members may not be
available. So it was never going to be easy. It was going to need some very
good management to complete on time.

Unfortunately this did not occur. The non voting Chair appointed by the
co-coordinators, (and it may have been on my recommendation) Jacqui Morris,
was not able to complete her duties properly. Her inaction led to the
circumstance where some nominations, sent to her as requested in the call
for nominations, never reached the committee and therefore were not
considered. 

I believe this may have been due to illness. But whatever the circumstances,
I believe Jacqui should have resigned when it became clear she could not
devote sufficient energies to completing the task, and a new non voting
chair should have been appointed. And, in the absence of action or responses
from the non voting chair, the nomcom members should have informed the co
coordinators of the problem requesting their assistance to rectify matters.

Either of those two actions would have been helpful. And perhaps future
procedures and briefings by co cordinators can suggest  to Nomcoms to
contact the co cordinators if administrative issues arise which suggest they
may not be able to complete their tasks within the nominated period.

The recommendations by the Nomcom are below with my personal responses


In brief, we lean toward changes like the following to assist future
NomComs:

    ·1     Select NomCom members in closer proximity to the activity period.
In this instance, 6 months separated the selection and activation, and
life's randomness and responsibilities kept some members from participating
as they would have liked.

IP COMMENTS ­ The difficulty is, that the process of selecting a Nomcom
takes about one month ­ impossible if we are required to have a Nomcoms
deliberations completed within about a month. The UN is making a reasonable
call in expecting stakeholders to respond within 30 days ­ we have to have
procedures that allow this. I think this requires us perhaps to have a
standing nomcom ready to go ­ with requisite reserves- at any time. My
personal preference would be that at the beginning of each calendar year we
select a Nomcom for that calendar year, and that as their first task they
renew the Appeals Team ­ an annual task. They can then be on standby for
anything else that comes up.


    ·1     In addition to the randomly selected members, include two
experienced non-voting Co Chairs or Coordinators who would be responsible
for guiding and ensuring the process is integral and all communications
reach NomCom team members. Having two chairs will preclude instances where
the experienced non-voting member becomes unavailable.

IP COMMENTS ­ I think one non voting chair is more than enough, but that the
non voting chair needs to have a clear working process with the co
coordinators. This could include submitting a timetable to the co
coordinators for actions, plus progress reports on deadlines met as the
process proceeds. Some active management of the process at this distance ­
without being involved or privy to selection issues ­ is I think what co
ordinators are elected to do and should do.





    ·1     Nominations should be distributed to NomCom members at the
outset, directly, and not sent initially to co-advisors only. Have an agreed
platform for presentation of nominee documents, and for face to face
discussion of nominations, for example, via Skype.  Procedures should be
highlighted, including methodology on how nominations are to be selected and
the selection process: by consensus, by vote, or by discussion.

IP COMMENTS ­ Agreed. I would add to this that all nominations received
should be acknowledged individually, so there can be no doubt that they were
in fact received. This can be mentioned in the call for nominations.

On the over all procedures,  I am unsure of the processes adopted this time,
but past nomcoms have adopted processes that did not always involve real
time meetings (not all members have reliable connections to allow skype or
such face to face discussions). Good processes can be adopted to allow full
inputs and comparison of the inputs of various members to arrive at
consensual decisions


    ·1     Duties and responsibilities of Chairs and of members should be
made clear at the outset of NomCom selection. In particular the time frame
of activation of NomCom should be stated at outset.

IP COMMENTS. Agreed. A thorough co cordinator briefing is important to a
good outcome.

    ·1     Establish a quorum of NomCom members required before the final
selection is made. And establish a procedure for filling inactive NomCom
positions during the review period. This should include an expansion of the
reserve pool from 3 to 5 members.

IP COMMENTS. Every Nomcom I have been on has had inactive members ­ but we
have always had a core of at least 3 active members and have ploughed ahead,
leaving it open to inactive members to pick up involvement later on ­ as has
sometimes happened.  This circumstance seems highly unusual, in that people
stated they were available and would participate and then did not. That is
difficult to deal with and I am unsure what can be done in that case.
Appointing additional members is certainly one option but it¹s not an easy
one.



That ends the recommendations that have come forward. But in general, I
think that current processes can work, but they require a more comprehensive
briefing by co ordinators and process management by coordinators as well.
And they require selection of trusted and capable non voting chairs if that
option is used.


But longer term ­ I would suggest those looking at charter review also look
at whether the lottery style nomcom or some other procedure might be best
suited to our longer term future. I hesitate to comment on that here ­ but
will if there is charter review under consideration. But for now, I think we
need to look carefully at how we can improve management of processes under
our existing charter rather than discuss changes that are more complex and
wont solve problems of bad management in any case.

Ian Peter



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120225/0f4616a4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t