Social Network for RSA Fellows
The RSA’s “Tea Party” moment.
Jonathan Rollason, Chair of the RSA London Region, who proposed the second motion for an “all elected” trustee board made it quite clear at a recent Q&A, organised by the RSA on 18th November 2010, that this was not a personal attack on any existing trustee and that he hoped that all the current trustees would stand for election alongside new nominees. It is a motion to propose an alternative organisational model for the 250-year old society which in recent decades has been seen as increasingly remote from its Fellowship. Centralisation of RSA regional activity, with many parts of the UK having no local presence just a networks manager based at the society’s headquarters in London, has diminished its ability to “roll out” successful campaigns nationally. Added to this are poor communication issues, a cumbersome website and the under-funding of regional branches -
problems common to many third sector organisations.
“The motion for an ‘all elected’ trustee board could easily have been a general motion of ‘no confidence’ in the board, but, it is not that at all. Nor is it a motion for some disillusioned and embittered fellows to wreak their revenge on the Trustee board. It is there to offer the RSA Fellows a strong voice in determining the direction of our beloved society and to further promote the core values of the RSA which are to promote new thinking, social innovation and an ethos of collaboration”, said Jonathan Rollason, “how can the RSA advise society on social change when it struggles to embrace democracy itself? The motion has no time-frame and we would expect the governance review group to recommend a strategy that works for the RSA and a time-frame. The governance review group might recommend that when the current trustee’s appointments come to a close their replacements are elected. We will find out in 2011 when the group reports.”
"Furthermore, Motion 2 for an ‘all elected’ trustee board in its supporting statement clarifies that the proposer of the motion and supporters are open “to co-option of observers based on their specific expertise, in addition to the elected ones.” This latter statement was subsumed in the haste to meet the deadline for the AGM vote. So what makes this suggestion different from the current status quo? “Well it redresses the balance from the current mostly appointed Trustees to the future’s elected Trustees, which is a push towards greater democracy and self-determination for the organisation and it’s Fellowship” explained Mr Rollason, proposer of the motion.
Discussions on the RSA’s Fellowship Council ning site, on the RSA LinkedIn group and musings by Matthew Taylor have generated a lively debate about the issues and thrown up some seemingly anomalous ideas:
1. The RSA is not a membership organisation per se, although the majority of Fellows do need the ability to network with each other and at a local level to collaborate and create the innovative plans that the society advocates, activities that are a common feature of membership organisations.
2. Although the RSA has well established Royal Charter, Constitution and remit, most fellows expect its organisational structure to be more flexible than it presently is.
4. Most fellows appreciate that the Trustee board has finely-defined remit to deliver on governance issues, financial stability and charitable activities of the Society, but, feel that some adaptation from the arcane structures first created in 1850 would be appropriate for a 21st Century RSA.
5. Many fellows are relatively disengaged from the governance issues and perplexed by why governance is such a controversial issue. However, many of these fellows are themselves frustrated with the inability “to make change happen” under the auspices of the RSA.
There is no “magic bullet” to resolve the seemingly dichotomous points listed above, however this is the first chance in the RSA’s 250-year history for fellows to make a genuine difference. Doom-mongers may claim that the good work of the RSA will come to a halt should the RSA be without a Chair and some its trustees, however these individuals fail to take into account the facts that the RSA is in a sound financial position it has a strong management team, it has a 40-strong part-elected Fellowship Council and it has the goodwill of 27,442 high-achieving, eminent and respected Fellows.
The motion for an ‘all-elected’ trustee board will need a majority vote on 6th December in order to be passed. It is simply a call for democracy. Surely the RSA should be an example to others and show how democracy can work? Perhaps the future will change as a result?
-
Comment by Kevin Robson on December 2, 2010 at 23:35 -
Dear Lopa
I have read your summary and applaud you for its clarity. Interestingly, you use the term dichotomous in your summary of the various points of view and whilst I don't necessarily believe there are only two branching points of view, I think it is useful to think of this current situation along those lines.
In essence, the dichotomous branch that I see as being the most dangerous is the idea that democracy is right for the RSA. Although, on the face of it, it sounds fine, it is clearly a move that would take the RSA off at a tangent from its existing form of governance, and I respectfully submit that it is a flawed idea? It appears a sound proposition (Democracy is clearly a good thing! etc.), but it takes for granted an affirmative answer and that begs a much deeper, highly debatable, question: is ‘democracy’ what the RSA needs?
Mr Rollason’s reported desire to redress the balance from the current situation of mostly appointed trustees to all-elected trustees in order to, “… push towards greater democracy and self-determination for the organisation and it’s Fellowship” is undoubtedly well intentioned, passionately advocated and, I am sure, borne of a frustration that many of us share with the RSA. However, if “self-determination” couched in terms of “democracy” means ‘changing things to meet the needs of the Fellowship’ (which is what I believe is a commonly held interpretation), there are massive flaws in the proposition.
We all know that democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people and that is not what the RSA is about. It is a 'body politic' according to its founding charter. It is not and never could (of should) be a political body. To seek to introduce a political culture into the RSA, however well intentioned, therefore, is just not appropriate. The RSA is an incorporated company governed under legislation (Companies acts and charity law). It has a separate legal identity and means of governance, and its members contribute to it in furtherance of its aims, as defined by the Royal Charter and bye-laws. It already has a means of governance that is clearly, legally, defined and to seek to change this is really quite extraordinary. Organisations like the RSA are not meant to be democratic. You cannot run a body politic on democratic lines.
There is obviously a very strong feeling amongst some Fellows (and I am one of them) that we could be so much more effective in society were we to act in a coordinated way. I think many of us, as leaders and shapers in society, feel we want to see the RSA have a higher profile and be a significant influencer and doer in our communities. This is laudable and may be achievable, but an all-elected board is not the way in my view.
The desire for change should not be confused with changing the governance of the RSA which must, of legal necessity, be about achieving the agreed and declared aims of the organisation: aims which have stood the test of time. It is not a matter of arcane 19th Century structures; it is a matter of current law and current practice. (As a former chief executive of a charity, I know this only too well.)
A wholly elected board is not necessarily a desirable thing, especially at this time. The idea brings with it many flaws. People who hold elected positions are concerned with accountability to their electorate (knowing they have to be re-elected), whereas, in a trustee situation, individuals are free to follow their own opinions, instincts, training, expertise and conscience, knowing that they carry the heavy burden of legal responsibility for probity in what they do.
Furthermore, low turnouts in elections (and the RSA suffers badly from this) means that an all-elected board would lack moral authority, because its decision-making power would not be based on the broad view of the people. An all elected, so-called ‘democratic’ board would only be serving the minority that elected it (and support of this kind is often single-issue driven anyway). Furthermore, there is always the possibility of the need to take decisions that clash with the elected mandate of the individual, and that really can put the cat amongst the pigeons.
On the other hand, trustees who are appointed, provided their appointment is by legitimate, honest, tried and tested means, have moral as well as legal authority and they avoid the possibility of conflicts of interest.
In the current climate of the RSA, I realise that this may not sound very palatable to many and, with that in mind, I stress that I am not advocating an all appointed board, I am simple trying to find a reasoned way through this very difficult situation because it is full of traps. I think it would be a mistake to believe that what is being proposed in an all elected 'democratic' board is unquestionably and unimpeachably correct.
-
Comment by Lopa Patel MBE on December 3, 2010 at 12:40 -
Ken, many thanks for your well-thought arguments. I guess finding the right way forward is why there is considerable debate on this issue. FWIW, I think greater democracy (albeit a flawed model) is always the better way forward - certainly democracies like the UK, Europe, USA and India ardently strive to protect this model and are the better for it.
-
Comment by Kevin Robson on December 6, 2010 at 12:52
-
Thank you Lopa. I don't at all disagree with your sentiment, only (perhaps a little ) with the application of democracy. There's an old saying in organisational design, "Form must follow function."
-
Comment by Sybil Crouch on December 7, 2010 at 17:41 -
So anybody able to tell me what happened at the AGM? I can't see anything on any of the RSA pages apart from Matthew's blog which says that there was strong support for the governance review - but nothing on which motions were carried. Or did the world collapse in JAS?
-
Comment by Lopa Patel MBE on February 1, 2011 at 21:53
-
The Resolution for a Fully-Elected Trustee Board was defeated. The count was conducted by Electoral Reform Services (ERS) to include every Fellow voting in person or by proxy with the following result: Number voting for the resolution (898). Number voting against the resolution (1092). Click below for full results.
Electoral Reform Services Count of the Vote for a Fully-Elected Tru...
Add a Comment
Review of RSA Fellowship nings, social networks
Over the next few months the RSAde Group will be consolidating regional social networks and nings. The aim will be to improve connectivity for Fellows, improve communication and reduce fragmentation.
Therefore there will be an increase of regional and thematic groups over the next few months.
If you would like further information on these changes please contact the RSAde team via the Digital Engagement group on this network.
RSA Vision
About the RSA
RSA Events
Does Population Matter?
One of the world’s leading geographers Professor Danny Dorling visits the RSA to argue that our concerns over population growth may be overblown.The Power of Vulnerability
Influential author and speaker Dr Brené Brown tackles the myth that vulnerability is a weakness. Instead, she argues, it is the clearest path to courage and meaningful connection, and has the power to transform the way we engage and educate.NHS at 65: rejuvenate or retire?
The NHS turns 65 this year at a time of significant change and unprecedented financial challenge. A panel of influential thinkers from the health sector and beyond debate whether it is time for the NHS to be retired off or whether there is scope for reinvention.Notes
Guide to RSA online communities
Created by Matthew Kálmán Mezey Dec 6, 2011 at 11:03am. Last updated by Matthew Kálmán Mezey Jun 22, 2012.
Apply for Fellowship today!
Created by Gurmeet Singh Feb 24, 2012 at 2:07pm. Last updated by Gurmeet Singh Feb 24, 2012.
Other social media guides
Created by Matthew Kálmán Mezey Nov 19, 2011 at 9:23pm. Last updated by Matthew Kálmán Mezey Dec 6, 2011.
© 2013 Created by RSA Networks.
You need to be a member of RSA Fellowship Social Network to add comments!
Join RSA Fellowship Social Network