[Note: This content has been moved from our old website. The author displayed is the person moving it, not the original author. Click here for details.]
Invitation to comment on how TTB could be run
(A link to this page is to be sent to everyone on the TTB mailing list. This was agreed by the Working Group Forum meeting of 27/7/10.)
Since this spring, TTB has been a Community Interest Company (CIC). This means that we now have a board of directors. Previously it was run by the Working Group Forum which had representatives from each working group, plus Duncan Law (chair / coordinator) and Margaret Creer (secretary).
Now we need to work out:
- How will the directors and the working group representatives work together?
- Who will be the members of the company for electing directors and so on?
For detailed discussion of these issues, power and membership, please click the links.
These questions and the detail of how meetings are conducted, who is invited, and who can vote, are key to how democracy works in the group. How a group is organized affects how engaged people become and how well their skills and creativity are used.
We would like you to give us any comments you have about how TTB is run – positive or negative – and detailed proposals for structure etc. These will be put together and discussed by directors and working group representatives.
Please add your comments below, or send your comments to TTB copying in ttbfood[at]gmail.com with ‘Governance Comment’ in the subject line and they will be added to the comments below.
To explore more information and ideas about this, please read on, (though it is not necessary to do so before sending comments) …
- Membership
- Different Structures and Ways of Running Organizations
- Best practice and the role of the company Articles
Printable version of these pages:
Word File: governanceDiscussion ; Pdf file: governanceDiscussion
Printable version of these pages with comments received by 4th August:
Word file: governanceDiscussionWithComments2 ; Pdf file: governanceDiscussionWithComments2
(Page created 29/7/2010 by Penny Noy, last updated 6/8/2010, please contact ttbfood@gmail.com if you find an error – thanks)
(sent as reply to Margaret’s comment)
I’m not sure I understand the two models proposed, and I’m not very keen on the titles (which I appreciate isn’t a substantive issue).
For my money the two options we have are :
DIRECT/INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP – Effectively individuals become members of the TTB CIC, on a one person one vote basis. – Our membership would therefore all those individuals – some of whom may or may not be involved with working groups. – The members decide what happens strategically, with the Board doing the day to day management/planning.
FEDERAL MEMBERSHIP – Membership of the TTB CIC comprises of each of the working groups, rather than individuals. – Each group would have equal weight in terms of voting. – The members decide what happens strategically, with the Board doing the day to day management/planning.
Both options have their pros and cons. With the second one there may be an issue if the constitution insists on Directors coming from among the memebrship, as not all of us are actively involved in working groups.
Can you clarify what is meant by the hierarchical model below (a name I’d avoid !). And on the sociocratic model (which sounds to me like the Federal model above) you mention a top and middle circle, but not a lower/bottom one. Is there a third ‘circle’ and if so what is it ?
(based on the notes on these wiki pages)
Membership: Start with federal membership and move to individual membership when the website is ready, if this is needed to give the working group forum representatives a vote in directors meetings. Note article 11 is about Directors delegating and says they can delegate any powers to a person or committee. Have Friends membership to raise money if agreed (though not sure of the reason for these members not to be full members, unless they are outside Brixton etc)
Monthly meetings: Choose one of the following:
Have separate directors meetings and working group forum meetings if it is considered necessary due to non-overlapping business. These could be general meetings, if it was needed to allow voting by the working group member representatives? OR
Have joint monthly meetings, (again, called general meetings if necessary, or by directors delegating), where voting was by directors and working group representatives
QUERY: When we have individual membership, can we continue monthly meetings that allow the working group representatives to vote with the directors, by the directors delegating powers?
Meeting method: Establish good practice guidelines, including
Strict adherence to advertising important topic discussions in advance
Good facilitation
Use consensus decision making, but recognize its limitations.
NB: If separate directors meetings are held, there must be some method of deciding which issues need discussion with, and approval from, the working group forum. The presence of some directors who are also working group representatives or active within a group should help identify these.
Observations:
It may be that it is appropriate to have an evolving structure, as this must be dependent on the size and activity of the organization to some extent. For instance, there were not a large number of volunteers to become directors from within TTB, so an election was not needed – it was appropriate to take objections only.
It may be important to discuss
How many directors can be appointed from outside the organization?
How does the number of directors compare to the number of group representatives and does this matter?
This discussion highlights that we need to examine the situation within the groups in the same way. It would be useful to have comments from the groups on how their groups work.
More detail:
For the time being have it as federal and have board meetings and general meetings (if that is needed so that the working group members can vote?).
When the website is ready have general membership based on some kind of commitment – monetary or voluntary, supporting the aims, do not have to live in Brixton (though limit this percentage and consider changing to Brixton, Lambeth or neighbouring boroughs), have 16 as a lower age limit (?)
Check through details of holding meetings, AGM etc to elect directors – in the governing document
Outline meeting best practice in terms of circulating meeting agendas ahead, allowing additions. Not passing important motions without advertising this (but how to decide what is important?)
Use consensus where possible, but realizing that is particularly requires training in facilitation and time – recognizing the elements:
Common goal
Commitment
Time
Clarity of process
Non-ownership of ideas
Good facilitation
Be aware of typical governance issues such as poor attendance, disempowerment, not adhering to agreed operating principles
Many thanks for the opportunity. To comment and propose. This is off the cuff with this time constraint and my workload.
TTB has done a brilliant job of linking people with energy and expertise and passion to achieve amazing results in the last 3-4 years. These people tend to be activist/entrepreneurial people who know and have experience in how to make things happen and have a strong belief in how the world should change.
Our next stage for TTB is to see how do we as independent individuals learn how to work together interdependently/collaboratively to the benefit of us as individuals, our communities and the planet. This fascinates me as it is the overall aim of TTB itself. I suggest that we learn the new way of working together as we grow TTB. (This is similar to the task Lambeth how has set itself with the co-operative council) However we are looking for more because we want to grow in a way that shows a benefit from our uniqueness and diversity pioneering new ways of living rather than just co-operating with each other to maintain status quo.
We now need to build beyond our activism and include all types of energy/people and develop our listening and collaborating skills as well as our walk and talk and action.
I propose
we self-select and nominate a small group of people to link with the many people who have appropriate experience and interest in assisting TTB.
we commit to developing our ability for formal consensus decision-making within any group or face-to-face meeting within TTB and most importantly develop our understanding of our integrity within the process as individuals and groups. (This is where our Heart & Soul group provides the vision and support for the healthy growth of TTB.)
we work with a commitment and strategy to grow our governance structure to suit the function of TTB.
I propose We do not think of members in relation to their financial input but in relation to their commitment or ability to be involved.
Members can be involved in one or more of the following ways:
by working within one of the Working Groups,
in a Core Resource Group,
as a financial or resource donor,
as an expert advisor/facilitator or commenter
a reader of news.
If this proposal (and any amendments) is agreed then I suggest we look at how income and outgoings flows from that. Most importantly, we look at how to make things happen rather than why they cannot happen.
With thanks and best wishes Sue
Sue Bell
At the last directors meeting we agreed to take the TTLewes ways of working as a starting point. http://transitiontowns.org/Lewes/OurAims . Transition Town Lewes does a lot of things well and is worth exploring.
I have added them as a link on the Governance Links page on Penny’s really excellent updating of the WIKI.
I will ask Adrienne Campbell who was very much involved in the early stages how they have worked in practice, including during recent wobbles TTL has suffered.
9/8/2010
Adrienne responded that we should prepare for conflict resolution and look closely at the process by which processes or principles are adopted (I think we are). She also thinks the monthly forum is the place to make organisational decision and to do both the above.
Here is what she wrote:
”They are brilliant, empowering principles.
Interestingly, we’re just about to add two more along the lines of
the monthly forum is a place for making organisation-wide decisions (until now it wasn’t – all decisions were made in groups which left a big strategy gap).
the forum is a place for resolving conflict.
I feel the principles lack teeth for dealing with problems. Eg at the moment we’ve got someone who’s hellbent on damaging TTL who’s writing horrid emails to all and sundry and making meetings so unpleasant that people are dropping out to avoid the conflict, which is seen to be ‘in the organisation’ not just coming from one person. Similar happened in Transition Brighton and Hove, who have been really crippled by one small group’s behaviour (partly because they didn’t have principles to refer to when disciplining them).
Basically we have to bring some kind of disciplinary action on this woman. We don’t have any principles that would allow us to exclude her (and we should). And we don’t have a We (though because she recently brought our monthly forum to a premature close we can probaby act on the authority of the forum…). And we don’t have a conflict resolution approach.
When she did this stuff in the group that was setting up the market, a couple of months ago, we invited a conflict resolution facilitator to come to a meeting at which she luckily agreed to come (she didn’t have to). At that meeting we all said we wanted her to leave the group. And she did (she didn’t have to).
So if I were you I’d get some clever person to add a principle that deals with conflict and gives you teeth to ask someone to leave.
You might ask Zoe Nicholson. Zoe and Peter Burden facilitated the principles – Zoe in particular works all the time with networked and open space approaches, within the nhs, she’s a genius… you can say I said so! The process by which you adopt these is also important – maybe run that by her….
Zoe Nicholson 473756 (h)/ 07748 966527 “Zoe Nicholson”,””
Duncan PS I will contact Zoe.
Transition Town Brixton – 3 Governance Proposals
“Therefore the design of each individual was a reflection of the experience it expected to encounter” Jean Liedloff, The Continuum Concept.
Just as human beings evolved to perfectly fit their environment, so too must the design of Transition Town Brixton come to perfectly reflect the experience it expects to encounter, and that should be nothing less than the complete transformation of society. Either that or it will committ itself to a set of practices, principles and therefore experiences that fall a great deal shorter than that which it’s environment makes possible, and indeed, which the current state of human affairs makes desirable.
Participation
TTB is currently incarnated as a CIC but I would urge a fuller responsibility upon it – that of the foundation for a completely new society. As such I would argue that its governance structure must reflect both its political as well as practical position in society and be fully inclusive of all its members i.e. everyone.
If our new society is to stop Climate Change and prepare for peak oil it must also first stop mans exploitation of man. It is this that forces destruction on the environment and draws unsustainable levels of oil from beneath the soil.
For these reasons TTB must therefore incorporate within it an ever increasing tendency toward equality. Of this, full and equal participation in its affairs is a fundamental tenet, and this inclusiveness must be incorporated into the systems and the very fibre of TTB. Without it we will be propogating the same unequal systems that are destroying the planet and people’s lives. We must lead by example, from our political structure to how we value people’s time, and not just model, but be the future.
1.) Proposal: Equal Participation.
Directors, steerers and WG convenors all meet together at one general meeting until scale, or the development of a preferable governance structure, naturally make a division necessary.
This would allow us to work out our own governance structure together, learn how to work together, get to know each other, learn how to “pioneer horizontal decision making” together as provided for in the CI statement, and learn how and where and in what manner divisions and further structures maybe necessary.
A practical consideration: At the last working group forum, minus the 3 directors, there were only 7 people and 3 of them were from B£ or Re-made which are, or are planning to become, CICs.
That leaves only 4 regular TTB volunteers which are presently managed by 6 Directors.
How combining the two meetings is constitutional possible: Article 11.1 in TTB’s Articles and Memorandum states “subject to the articles, the Directors may delegate any of the powers which are conferred on them under the Articles to such person or committee, by such means, to such an extent, in relation to such matters and territories, and on such terms and conditions, as they think fit”
This means the Directors could confer equal powers of decision making on WGF convenors and members as they, the directors, currently enjoy. The WGF and Directors meeting combined could then be considered a general meeting under the articles, where those present could legitimately take strategic decisions.
Membership
If we are in the business of the foundation of a completely new society, which I believe we are, all the people within the places outlined in the CI statement are automatically, intrinsically and inseperably a part of that society.
Thus, if TTB is going to be facilitating this new societies creation, we must make the provision for everyone, as equal stakeholders, to have equal an opportunity to have an equal say on what infact their society becomes.
With concerns to the cost of membership I believe that it is quite impossible to charge people to become a member of a new society. People belong whether they want to or not, and in matters in which we bring about changes in that society in which they live, I would argue, they deserve atleast the opportunity to have an equal say.
2.) Proposal: Membership.
Everyone in the area outlined in the CI statement is automatically considered a member of TTB which becomes active when they sign up to a TTB list.
Until we have the capacity to manage a wider membership, I would suggest the creation of a TTB-active list, like TTLewes,’ would be a suitable way of manageably including people in decision making in the short-term.
Managing the wider membership.
“Two thirds of the benefit lie in the process – in the act of participation” Perry Walker, NEF.
The NEF found that participation in governance in Swiss Cantons actually makes people happy by as much as nearly half the equivalent of moving from the lowest to the highest income band.
The Foundation also found that participation “improves the quality of decision making” Perry Walker, taken from NEF’s quality of life indicators.
3.) Proposal: Wider Membership
As a much larger membership comes into being, the general meeting of members required to be called by TTB’s Articles of Association will need to be split into Swiss style cantons or neighbourhoods, in which interested rather than just active members gather together to discuss those matters it has been agreed are particular to the membership, and make resolutions.
Elected representatives from each neighbourhood would then meet in a general circle and come to final binding decisions.
The constitutional provision for this: Article 12.2 in TTB’s Articles and Memorandum that states “the Directors may make rules of procedure for all or any committees, which prevail over the rules derived from the Articles if they are not consistent with them.”
“On the question of General Meetings, looking at the articles, it looks to me as if there are major restrictions on bringing proposals, particularly amending them eg you have to notify special proposals 2 weeks in advance and can only amend spelling at the meeting. Ordinary proposals you have to notify any amended proposals 2 days in advance!
Also General Meetings have to be notified 2 weeks in advance
However, there may be an alternative to this which might be for the Directors to delegate their powers to an ‘Exec Committee’ of Directors and Working Group reps. That is if you really want a large committee like that. Could still have separate General Meetings for Members”
Governence? -> 1. What is being governed? A ‘Community Interest Group’ = interest IN and OF the community
resilience
creating a market FOR/OF/IN Brixton
providing and producing a PRODUCT for the community
a. Interests IN the community, making sure investment made stays in Brixton
facilitating investment in community [larger than traditional family unit],
policies for increased cohesiveness, shared benefits
facilitating local economy
decision making at local level to control future of Brixton,
b. Interests OF the community – needs and desires – assuring SECURITY in the future through facilitation transition towards a sustainable Brixton
SECURITY – social, cultural and economic;
quality of life maintained in rise of oil prices/climate change
increased skill sets, jobs
health and general well being
2. How In respect to what is being governed, I think a cooperative model might be suitable
[wikipedia]: “A business organization owned and operated by a group of individuals for their mutual benefit…defined as autonomous associations of persons untied voluntarily to meet their economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprises”
Pay to become a member and receive the folowing
1. Voluntary and Open Membership
2. Democratic Member Control
3. Member Economic Participation
4. Autonomy and Independence
5. Education, Training and Information
6. Cooperation among Cooperatives
7. Concern for Community
member must believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness and social responsibility.
Shares/Returns/Divedends – according to patronage/work? SHARE: a unit of account for financial instrument, stocks, investments -> equity participation -joint use of resources/spaces. -Joint/alternating use of an inherently finite good. **disjoints the connection between usage and ownership of a product –could imagine potential growth in housing, building and agricultural cooperatives
example is Mountain Equipment Coop in Canada, directed by the members. MEC fulfills its core purpose – to help people enjoy the benefits of self-propelled wilderness-oriented recreation, by selling outdoor gear, clothing, and services. A co-operative is a democratically owned business structure in which members pool their resources to obtain a benefit. At MEC, members use their shared purchasing power to obtain goods and services for outdoor activities. Anyone can join MEC by buying a $5 membership share. Your share allows you to make purchases and vote on how the Co-op is governed. MEC is the largest retail co-operative in Canada and demonstrates what can be done through collective democratic ownership. Our commitment to green building, community grants, ethical purchasing, product sustainability, and promotion of Canada-wide parks and protected areas demonstrates the best of what business can be in our society.
9 member board of directors,
each year there’s a vote on new directors, can serve up to three years, and there’s a mandatory 48 day rest period between periods,
mainsite: http://www.mec.ca/Main/home.jsp?bmUID=1280919789817 governence bit: http://www.mec.ca/Main/content_text.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=2534374302887399&bmUID=1280268674256
OPEN SPACE TECHNOLOGY with 500+ members I don’t see a problem IF we (assuming board of directors)
follow ‘good practice’ -inclusion, transparency, horizontal decision making, proposals put out to the members with a period of time to be argued against etc.
know quantifiably what we are trying to provide the community with, so can be held accountable for it ie. COMMUNITY INTEREST STATEMENT
[...] bigtweet_url = 'http://www.transitiontownbrixton.org/2010/11/current-membership-discussion/'; Click here for our previous governance discussion archived from our previous website with extensive details [...]
[...] GOVERNANCE DISCUSSION [...]