QUOTE: ‘…as far as I know, membership of State Boards and Committees attract a nominal remuneration at best — there are no full-time board positions. This is as it should be; financial rewards run counter to the spirit of voluntary service, particularly with regard to State institutions, due to the sheer inherent importance of the work they are concerned with’

MOST OF the issues I examine in this column are issues that I have a deep-seated interest in, or which affect me personally, directly or indirectly. As such, from time to time, I am prone to return to examine different perspectives of each topic. There is, after all, only so much you can do within the space of a thousand-word column.

This week, I wish to return to the issue of volunteerism, especially since International Volunteer’s Day was observed yesterday. I’ve previously visited this topic, probably twice, if my memory serves me correctly, over a year ago. In those previous columns, I examined the impact of volunteerism on the delivery of public services, making the case that a dollar value and other factors of value-assessment should be placed on volunteering in order to have a clearer picture of the cost of delivery of those services to the various sectors.

In this edition, my concern is from a less general perspective — that of serving in a voluntary capacity on public Boards, Commissions and Committees, and its implications on the life and effectiveness of the volunteer. I don’t think it is unknown that I hold membership on several State boards, including the Chairmanship of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited (GNNL), publisher of the Guyana Chronicle, and, if it is unknown, I state it now, partially as a disclaimer, partially to buttress the authenticity of my arguments below.

QUOTE: ‘The value of voluntary service is largely based on the donation of your time, perhaps the ultimate finite resource. There are only so many hours in a day, and the time you dedicate to a Board or Commission or Committee is time that one could have spent engaging in financially-rewarding or more pleasurable activities — leisure time with one’s family, putting in additional remunerated work, or simply doing something that gives one some peace of mind’

Firstly, as far as I know, membership of State Boards and Committees attract a nominal remuneration at best — there are no full-time board positions. This is as it should be; financial rewards run counter to the spirit of voluntary service, particularly with regard to State institutions, due to the sheer inherent importance of the work they are concerned with.

Indeed, because of the importance associated with the work of these institutions, and naturally the Boards which are responsible for formulation of the policy which governs their respective work, I believe that anyone called to serve on any Board should consider some key issues before deciding to commit to that service.

The very first issue which needs to be considered is the possible personal impact participation may have. The value of voluntary service is largely based on the donation of your time, perhaps the ultimate finite resource. There are only so many hours in a day, and the time you dedicate to a Board or Commission or Committee is time that one could have spent engaging in financially-rewarding or more pleasurable activities — leisure time with one’s family, putting in additional remunerated work, or simply doing something that gives one some peace of mind. It may require one to ask oneself: Am I willing to make that personal sacrifice?

The second issue concerns whether one’s orientation (professional or otherwise) qualifies him or her to serve in the capacity he or she is volunteering in. Unless these skills somehow tie into the agenda of, say, a local arts Board, then it may be that the organisation’s interest may be better served by having someone else function in that capacity. Of course, a diversity of skills would be a benefit to the policymaking body of any organisation, but inherent in that concept is a diversity of relevant or applicable skills. This points to the related fact that, oftentimes, there is no fixed criteria for the recruitment of Board members, although credibility and competency play a major role.

The third issue, and, in my mind, the major of the three, is whether one is able to live with the policy decisions made or contributed to. Boards, as I mentioned, benefit from diversity, yet a Board or Commission, in terms of policymaking, act as a single unit, with policies being formed on a consensus basis. No policy decision is handed down with a caveat that says “Member Jones and Member Persaud dissented, but were overruled, and this is the decision the majority is making.” As a member of as important an entity as a State Board, one may not be personally culpable for the decisions one makes, decisions that will impact upon hundreds, often thousands, of lives. Yet, there are associated risks related to the policy decision and its subsequent implementation, whether the outcome of the decision-making is immediate, or is only apparent years after one may have left that Board or Committee. Again, key questions include whether one is willing to accept the policy decision of the Board as a unit (albeit a personal dissenting view), and the consequent implications on the populations affected.

Against the foregoing, this begs the question of the ‘gaps’ which may better inform a potential board member’s performance and impact. From the perspective of the entity engaging someone as the member of a particular Board, I believe that there should be built-in mechanisms to orient new membership, as part of the organisation’s strategy. This should include, first and foremost, orientation on the general policy of the sector in which the entity is operating. Additionally, it will serve the agency’s interest to make available previous agency policies and related relevant documents to foster an understanding of the said agency’s direction. While the format of the orientation is negotiable, it is extremely necessary that the package includes key policy decisions which were made by previous Boards over a specific period, say the last three years. Not only will this save time of new Board members having to play catch-up — definitely not a luxury when you consider that most boards have the lifespan of one year — but it also mitigates decisions that are arbitrary, subjective and ill-informed. Granted that policy formulation is not an exact science, Board membership presumes familiarity with the issues so that an educated consensus is used in decision-making.

Related to that is the need to establish mechanisms to provide Board members with accurate background information on the company from a management’s perspective. This would significantly facilitate informed decision-making by Board members (particularly for critical decisions), and prevent the not uncommon management strategy of overloading the Board with information, days before a scheduled meeting, thus guaranteeing that the decision-making process is stymied or put in disarray. A useful tool may be for management, as part of their orientation process for new Board members, engage the member in key operational elements and other significant managerial ideologies.

Another strategy would be for the agency to engage technical consultants to translate certain issues for the Board, particularly in sectors that possess a high degree of specialty. As stated, while Board members are selected on competency and credibility, there will be a need for supplementary but informed positions to facilitate decision making in this regard. These persons (technical consultants) who should be available at the request of the Board, will not only account for an accurate Board decision making, but also negate potential devastating effects on the operations of the agency and possibly its stakeholders.

BELATED HAPPY VOLUNTEERS’ DAY!! That’s it for this week. In the next column, I will take a look at the issue of governance in NGOs and other related issues.