Quote: ‘Another way of finding or creating value in engaging in this sort of service is by creating mechanisms for sharing whatever knowledge one gains from his/her tenure. If one is called to serve, in  areas where the work is not confidential, or where there isn’t a conflict of interest, there is the scope of having younger people support one’s work…’ IN A RECENT article, I spoke about the challenges of sustaining a weekly column, while signalling my intention to maintain the frequency of same and comment on issues of national interest which are personally appealing.  One of the issues with column writing is the challenge of balancing advance planning and being topical at the same time.  For example, this week I had intended to initiate a series of discussions on governance within the NGO(Non-Governmental Organization) sector. However, during the past few days, I’ve noticed some letters to the editor directly referencing my tenure on a particular state board.
Roughly one month ago, I dedicated one of my articles to the issue of service on state boards, and I will expand a little on some aspects of that previous piece.  Before I go further however, I’d like to make it clear whom my primary audience for this article is, is reflected below.
There are some people who believe, erroneously, that membership of a state board is a highly remunerated position, or that there are other incentives.  For these people, this article may serve somewhat to clarify that misconception.
There are others, as is the case of at least one letter writer in the past week, who quite reasonably posed the question of members of state boards being able to account for their tenure.  I believe that posing such questions in the public domain is completely justifiable; indeed, I have long held the position that a continued interrogation by objective stakeholders constitutes a key tool for development of any entity or sector.
Whom I have no intention of writing for are those who believe that one should not serve on state boards because of some skewed partisan political perspective.  There are too many who are set in their ways, beyond any appeal to reason and commonsense, to even attempt to defend whatever charge they decide to throw during any particular week.
First of all, I would like to address the financial benefits of serving on state boards.  There are none.  At most, there are token board fees and, as I stated in my previous article, there are no full-time state board positions.  Outside of the knowledge gained in a particularly narrow field, there are no other non-remuneration benefits, either, to state board membership.  The time that board membership takes, and this extends beyond the statutory meetings, is often great.  As I said in the previous article:
‘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 one dedicates 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’
As obtains with most of the people I know who serve on state boards, the decision to serve is taken with a dedication to that service.  Undertake a personal cost-benefit analysis of any committed individual’s service on a state board and, to put in bluntly, the costs, by far, outweigh the benefits.  Voluntary service of any nature is a sacrifice, more so – I truly believe – when you volunteer your time towards helping to shape public policy.  The sacrifice, in fact, is the reward – the reward of knowing that your effort is geared towards achieving something beyond the call of your regularly assigned duties.
There is, of course, the question of accounting for your tenure as the member of a board.  This is something I dealt with in the previous column, and I beg the reader’s indulgence to quote myself again:
“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 [having] a personal dissenting view), and the consequent implications on the populations affected.”
A board functions as a unit – at the end of the day, there is no room for individualism. While individual competencies collectively constitute the board as an entity, it is inherent within the nature of boards – not the least reason being the sake of cohesion – to subsume those individual competencies towards specific and singular goals and objectives, as is reflected in policy.  While individual initiative may be checked within the confines of board membership, this is often more a good than bad factor. 
What the individual board member can do is to focus on specific areas so one can see – in addition to collective action – more or less direct change as a result of one’s involvement.  I can give the example of working as part of team on the Blueprint for Guysuco Turn Around Plan , as a fairly recently appointed member of the board: being able to formulate my own specific input.
Another way of finding or creating value in engaging in this sort of service is by creating mechanisms for sharing whatever knowledge one gains during his/her tenure If one is called on to serve, in areas where the work is not confidential, or where there isn’t a conflict of interest, there is the scope of having younger people support one’s work, as I have done in several cases.  What this does is help to increase their capacity so that ultimately there is an overall wider pool of knowledge on a particular sector.
There is no easy answer to the issue of personally accounting for one’s tenure as the member of a state board.  Due to the nature of the work of most boards, as well as the environment in which we exist, it is difficult to account even collectively for the impact of the policy one creates, beyond the immediately apparent.  A decision taken today by a board, may have implications – positive or negative – that only come into force years down the line.  What I can say is that once the most competent people are being to chosen to serve, in areas they are willing to dedicate their time and energy to, then one can be virtually assured of some positive impact in the specific area of service.
In closing, it would be useful to note that a great many questions about issues of leadership, governance, and decision-making emanate from quarters in which those issues are arguably more pertinent than they are outside of them.  We have the phenomenon of people hurling boulders, not rocks, from their own glass houses, apparently without fear of scrutiny.  Next week, the intended series on NGOs and reform will be launched, and I am keen on seeing the sort of response this will garner, stones including.