[Dialogue] Mutual Accountablity
Martin Gilbraith (ICA:UK)
martin at ica-uk.org.uk
Mon Jul 2 05:24:41 EDT 2007
Hi all, I guess another dynamic we have in the UK is that we are a membership
organisation - a charitable company rather than a charitable trust - and our staff, ex-staff
and every other kind of stakeholder is encouraged to become a member in order to elect
the Board and hold it to account. That relationship too is pretty closely regulated, but it
helps. I wonder whether ICA USA has members to elect its Board or whether the Board
simply replicates itself?
Martin
> Duncan raises some VERY interesting questions.
>
> Using the Canadian Institute ofCultural Affairs and affiliatesas a kind
> of mirror to reflect on our experience with ICA-USA, what pitfalls did
> they avoid, and what creative new processes and/or structures did
> they invent in struggling with financial/programmatic accountability?
>
> And how did the staff and the board remain mutually accountable?
>
> I recall that the Ecumenical Institute would not own the Kemper
> Building today if the Board of Directors had had its way. Faced with an
> empty and deteriorating building, the Board decided to sell it. But, as
> Mary Warren Moffett recently reminded me, a bunch of people--let's
> call them the Guardian Dynamic--said to the Board, "OH NO, YOU
> WON'T!" And those determined people succeeded in pulling off what I
> would call the Kemper Miracle, giving us the investment in Uptown
> that survives today.
>
> So let's not assume that any version of the rapidly changing Board of
> Directors automatically has the final wisdom or the last word--unless
> we let them.
>
> And finally, Duncan, who is the owner of the ICA Associates in
> Canada?
>
> And why did our Board of Directors prohibit the use of the concept of
> "ICA Associates" in the USA?
>
> Marshall
>
>
> Duncan Holmes <dholmes99 at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Jim wrote:
> > I wonder how other ICA's have dealt with this . . .
>
> I seldom participate in this discussion other than read. I can say some
> about our experience in Canada over the years. It may or may not have
> relevance to the discussion but it illustrates how we have had to wrestle
> with the dynamics of being a participatory organization having to make
> decisions when one part of the group was legally responsible - which I
> think
> is the question Jim asked.
>
> The ICA Canada board made it very clear to the staff several times over
> our
> history when we carried some significant debt that if push came to shove it
> was the Board that was legally liable for the organization. Any debts that
> the organization had accrued (which the staff had accrued) the Board
> would
> be held accountable for and would have to pay - if the debt got called.
>
> At one point some 20 years ago, the ICA Canada Board suggested that the
> organization be closed and its assets given to another charity as required
> by law in Canada when a charity is closed. The staff survived that one and
> began to work out a new way to work with the Board. We came to an
> agreement
> that the staff could be part of the discussions and consensus making of the
> Board and the staff would do what the Board decided to do.
>
> It was a dicey walk at times. The Board on several occasions "laid down
> the
> law" and made a difficult decision we as staff could not bring ourselves to
> make. They for instance said Edges could only be published if every issue
> was financially break even. The magazine at that time was causing a
> financial hemorrhage. The staff followed through and some issues later
> Edges
> was no longer on the news stand.
>
> In short, we as staff had to come to terms that in Canada, (and I do not
> know the USA law) staff could not legally be on the Board; the Board had
> final legal accountability; and we had to create a way to honour those
> realities as we figured out how to be operate in a participatory mode.
>
> Several years ago ICA Associates Inc., a for profit company, was in the
> situation of having to lay off staff to survive financially. We had involved
> all the staff in figuring out how to break even. The owners learned that we
> could ask all the staff for input but it was irresponsible to ask them to
> make the decision on who to lay off, when that was the only cost cutting
> measure we had left in our pocket. Those who were laid off were glad to
> have
> input but equally appreciative that they did not have to make the decision.
> That had to be done by the owners. It raised the question about
> participation in a very different way.
>
> That has been some of our experience. I hope it helps the discussion.
>
> Duncan
>
> Duncan Holmes is President of ICA Associates Inc in Toronto, Canada. He
> was
> Executive Director of ICA Canada for 15 years and is now Treasurer of the
> Board of ICA Canada. He joined the order in 1971.
>
>
> On 6/28/07 11:42 PM, "James Wiegel" wrote:
>
> > It would be great, and somewhat representational to
> > sort this out. You all will remember I sent around an
> > article written by Jim Campbell describing the origins
> > of organizaitons (incorporated ones ) and how they are
> > structured in a way somewhat antithetical to
> > participation. I find I run into this quite often --
> > the formal structures of organization are quite
> > different than the way people try to operate, and, at
> > least, if you are pretending to be a 501(c)(3), the
> > board gets to decide.
> >
> > I wonder how other ICA's have dealt with this . . .
> > --- David Dunn wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/28/07 5:09 PM, "Judy Lindblad" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Both Institutes have By-laws. The Board of
> >> Directors
> >>> serves both Institutes. The yearly audit covers
> >> both Institutes. Both
> >>> Institutes are registered in the State of
> >> Illinois. Both Institutes exist as
> >>> separate but coordinate organizations.
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> "Both Institutes exist as separate but coordinate
> >> organizations."
> >>
> >> In the context of our present conversation, that is
> >> a most interesting, if
> >> ambiguous phrase. I wonder what it means legally and
> >> I wonder what it
> >> suggests missionally.
> >>
> >> David
> >>
> >> --
> >> David Dunn
> >> www.mirrorcommunication.com
> >> david at mirrorcommunication.com
> >> 720-314-5991
> >> Skype: dmirror
> >>
> >> -- THANKS FOR UPDATING MY EMAIL ADDRESS --
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Dialogue mailing list
> >> Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
> >>
> > http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
> >>
> >
> >
> > 401 North Beverly Way
> > Tolleson, Arizona 85353-2401
> > +1623-936-8671
> > +1623-363-3277
> > jfwiegel at yahoo.com
> >
> > Now and then it's good to pause in the pursuit of happiness and just be
> happy.
> > Guillaume Apollinaire
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ___________________________________________________________
> ___________________
> > ______
> > Don't pick lemons.
> > See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
> > http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dialogue mailing list
> > Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
> > http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dialogue mailing list
> Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
> http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
>
--
Martin Gilbraith, Director <martin at ica-uk.org.uk>
ICA:UK, registered charity #1090745 & company limited by
guarantee #3970365
registered in England & Wales, at 41 Old Birley Street, Manchester
M15 5RF
tel/fax: 0845 450 0305 or 0161 232 8444 - website: www.ica-
uk.org.uk
a member of the Institute of Cultural Affairs International
"concerned with the human factor in world development"
More information about the Dialogue
mailing list