Governance, Process

One of the things I get to do at ALA Conferences is to chat (at least briefly) with ALA's Parliamentarian. Eli Mina became the official, paid parliamentarian for ALA a number of years ago.

Among the important changes in the culture of governance at ALA which is a direct result of his actions is the level of civility, and spirit of cooperation on Council. (I still monitor the list, and usually attend at least one session of ALA Council each meeting.)

Among the key concepts he has taught me is one that applies to a lot of life: Suffering is optional.

An equally important concept is that the goal of Parliamentary Procedure is to allow business to be accomplished while protecting the rights of the minority. This latter is highlighted in one of the articles he has posted on his web site. He talks about it as "community engagement" while I think that there are bigger implications for decision-making at all levels.
     http://www.elimina.com/insights/shared-oct12.html

In another part of my life, I am serving on a nominating committee. That is always an interesting process, and the person running this one is doing a spectacular job. He is doing what Eli suggests in his article about nominations and elections.

      http://www.elimina.com/insights/rule-sep13.html

In my list of saved links, I have one more word of wisdom from him, and I really don't need to say much more than quote the title and give you the link: "Pause before pushing send"
     http://www.elimina.com/insights/shared-Oct07.htm

What is my job? A question for Board members

I don't currently serve on a Board for any organizations, nor do I work for one. However, for much of adult life (certainly since 1985), I was intimately involved in Boards. I was both an employee for a Board, and in many cases served on Boards of other organizations either where I lived or in my professional life.

Actually, it was during that board service that I met Eli Mina. Eli is the current professional Parliamentarian employed by the the American Library Association. But, he is more than just a Parliamentarian. He helps groups to work effectively together, and is an insightful observer of organizational dynamics.

I subscribe to his e-newsletter, and would highly recommend it. There are also some great resources on his web site: http://www.elimina.com/

In the most recent newsletter he has this:

A corporate board member asked me this question: "Isn't my primary duty to the shareholders, to ensure their investments are protected and their dividends are maximized?" A similar question was raised by an elected municipal official: "Isn't my duty to vote as per the wishes of the citizens who elected me?" A third example is a Member of Parliament who, ahead of a vote on a contentious issue, said: "I have to go back to my riding [i.e. district] and find out how my constituents want me to vote."

I looked around on his web site and did not find this article (there is other great stuff...). The second paragraph is key. It is the concept that so many in governance on the larger scale seem to forget:

The above examples reflect a widespread misconception that the primary duty of elected officials is to please their constituents. In fact, the primary duty of elected officials is not to one constituency or another, but to the organization as a whole.

As a Board member, or representative, your job while acting on the Board is to consider the good of the organization as a whole. I just think what Congress could accomplish if they were to act this way. Now, this still let's people disagree about the idea, but would mean that the discourse would be different.

Here are a couple of the concluding paragraphs:

And what about that Member of Parliament? His/her duty is to the country as a whole and not exclusively to constituents back home. Basing one's vote solely on their preference would politicize the process (i.e.: develop perceptions that political leaders will do anything to appease voters in order to boost their re-election prospects). It may ultimately be unfair to the country as a whole.
The above comments mean that elected decision makers who perform their roles correctly (i.e.: placing the organization's interests ahead of narrow interests) can become targets of harsh criticisms by their constituents: "You did not keep your campaign promises" or "You capitulated and did not stand up for us" or "You can be sure we'll campaign against you at the next election." Being punished and chastised for doing your job correctly is not fun. This can make it feel very lonely in elected positions.

How can elected officials do their jobs correctly while coping with abuse and personal attacks? The typical advice is to develop a "thick skin" and not be swayed by criticism that may arise from widespread misconceptions about the roles of elected officials.

Can this problem be addressed differently? Yes, possibly by educating constituents, electors and shareholders, and by making them aware of the complexity of the work of elected officials and the fact that their duty to the organization as a whole must come first.
In an optimal setting, constituents will adjust their expectations and abandon the culture of personal entitlement. Given the prominence of the culture of entitlement, eradicating it would require sustained educational efforts by elected leaders. Such efforts would be a good investment that will strengthen the foundation and the backbone of your organization or community.

While ALA Council and the EB get bashed in some circles, I have seen much more of a move towards the healthier behavior of considering what is good for the organization rather than what helps the individual.

Majority rules or Majority Rules!

ALA-Anaheim 2012 is now over. Just before the conference, I received an email from the ALA Parliamentarian (Eli Mina) not in that role, but in his "day job" role as a professional parliamentarian. First, you can find his web site here. If you are interested in group dynamics and in procedure, Eli has some great words of wisdom.

In his recent e-newsletter he had the following to say:

"Is the Majority Always Right?"

At a recent workshop, a newly elected municipal official said this: "A wise person taught me that, with a Council of seven members, the most important number is four. With four votes you can change policy. With four votes you can provide exceptional leadership. With four votes you are at liberty to govern however you wish. "

On the surface, this seems like good practical advice. After all, in parliamentary democracies, a fundamental principle of decision making is: The majority rules. In order to adopt a proposal or enforce a measure, a voting body requires that more members vote yes than vote no. If not, the proposal is defeated. With this in mind, the numbers are "the only thing that matters." Right? Not so. Something significant is missing.

Here is the problem: Have you ever observed an aggressive and impatient majority forcing its will on a helpless minority by cutting off debate prematurely? Ever witnessed a majority being stubbornly entrenched and unwilling to tolerate new data that might lead to enlightened and thoughtful decisions? In such cases, there may very well be enough votes in the affirmative, but this does not change the fact that the decision-making process is flawed, possibly leading to bad decisions that the majority may live to regret.

Yes, the numbers are important. But if the group focuses exclusively on the number of votes, it may end up making its collective decisions on the basis of ignorance, self interest, emotion, and loud and aggressive voices, instead of making them on the basis of objectivity, full knowledge, and a careful analysis of the issues at hand.

With numbers-based democracies, the end (getting enough votes) justifies the means, which may prompt some people to make pre-meeting deals on how they'll vote. On the other hand, with knowledge-based democracies, members refuse to commit their votes in advance of a meeting. Instead, they arrive at meetings with fully open minds, listen to everyone, and treat "minorities" as partners in decision-making.

With numbers-based democracies, assertive and persuasive advocates tend to prevail. With knowledge-based democracies, the people with the most relevant information and the most astute analysis are listened to. The group has a culture that promotes learning, inquiry and excellence in decision-making.

Ultimately, democracies that are primarily focused on the number of votes are more likely to produce flawed and risk-prone decisions. On the other hand, knowledge-based democracies are more likely to produce informed decisions that increase opportunities and minimize risks for the affected organizations.

Looking at this from another angle: Democratic decision-making bodies often use rules of order in meetings. The core premise should be that rules (relating to quorum, voting, motions, amendments, etc.) should be used as a means to an end and not as an end in themselves. Rules should advance knowledge-based decision-making, rather than manipulate the flow of a meeting and overpower minorities. A flawed proposal should not win solely because its advocates are capable of using rules to advance it. And a good proposal should not be defeated solely because its proponents do not know how to use the rules to pass it.

So, is the majority always right? Is four the most important number on a Council of seven? Only if the four have knowledge on their side; only if members come to meetings with open minds and are prepared to learn from the discussions; and only if the meeting environment is kept safe. Yes, the numbers are important, but they should be backed by objectivity and knowledge.

Sign up for his newsletters, buy his books. If you are in that kind of position, hire him. He is good. I am not being paid to say any of this, and if it were not true I would not say it.