Decision-Making by TNI Committees and Boards

1. Decision-Making by TNI Committees and Boards Requirements and Guidance

2. Policy Committee Mission • Develops general policies and procedures for TNI. • Resource for developing policies and SOPs • Reviews existing policies and SOPs for consistency and conformity with TNI mission • Provides recommendations for endorsement by TNI Board

3. DEVELOP Policies and SOPs Affecting more than one TNI Program Administrative When directed by TNI Board When requested by a program or committee REVIEW All policies and SOPs Consistency among each other Conformance to TNI Mission Recommend endorsement by TNI Board Developers -- Reviewers

4. Committee Profile • Administrative Committee • Under direction of TNI Board • Members are representatives of TNI Programs and committees • One member from the TNI Board • One at-large member

5. Alfredo Sotomayor* Jerry Parr JoAnn Boyd RaeAnn Haynes Silky Labie Carol Schrenkel Steve Stubbs Bob Wyeth *Chair TNI Board Ex-Officio LASC Proficiency Testing Consensus Standards Technical Assistance NELAP Advocacy Member -- Representing

6. Hierarchy of Normative Documents • Articles of Incorporation • Bylaws • General TNI Policies • General TNI SOPs • General TNI Guidance • Program Policies • Program SOPs • General TNI Guidance • Need to look at all to completely understand process

7. Document Process • Draft, finalize, and approve policies and SOPs • Refer to other programs when needed for concurrent approval • Send to Policy Committee for consistency review • Send to TNI Board • Organizational impact • Final endorsement • Post on TNI Website

8. Ownership • Charter guides creation of product • Drafter owns product • Reviewer suggests changes • Drafter responds to suggested changes • All can review, suggest • Only drafter can change product

9. Creating General Policies for TNI Conflicts of Interest Ethical Conduct of TNI Member Use of TNI Logos and Marks Management of Records Format Guidelines for SOPs of TNI Operations of TNI Committees and Program Boards Decision-Making Rules for TNI Committees and Boards General Policies and SOPs

10. Why Tackle Decision-Making? • Global issue • Outcome of all deliberations • Prelude to committee products • Policy Committee felt guidance would be useful • We are all concerned about “voting” • Integral to ensuring mission

11. The SOP • SOP 1 – 102: Decision-Making Rules for TNI Committees and Boards • Endorsed: TNI Board: December 12, 2007 • Effective: January 31, 2008 • Implementation: May 1, 2008 • Applicability: All TNI Programs and Committees

12. Requirements • Declare type of rule used to make a specific decision • Establish clear decision points • Establish quorum requirements • No fewer than three Committee Members or Directors • Record in the minutes all decisions made • For motions, record text, originator, and member who seconds

13. Options to Requirements • Consider allowing absent members to register a vote • Change rule for making a decision following an established rule • Document votes cast by each member • Record a minority or dissenting opinion

14. Foundation for Decision-Making • Participatory decision-making leads to sustainable agreements • Clear decision points mark the moment and allow proceeding with implementation • Decision-making by clear rules promotes accountability and ownership • All decisions made should follow established rules.

15. Types of Decisions • High-stakes • Long lasting results • Not easily reversible • Can be complex or contentious • Affect many • Require ownership by many • Low-stakes • Simple, routine

16. High or Low? • Where will the committee have dinner? • Who will be a committee member? • How are minutes approved? • When is an SOP revised? • How often does the program board meet? • How is the committee’s charter approved? • Who will be the Chair of TNI Board?

17. Types of Decision-Making Rules • Flip a coin • Person-in-charge decides without discussion • Person-in-charge decides after discussion • Majority vote* • Enthusiastic support* • Unanimous agreement* *Rules that can involve consensus, a participatory process of deliberation to make a decision

18. “Flip a Coin” • Arbitrary, random • Picking numbers from a hat, lottery • Not appropriate for high-stakes decisions • Good for quick low-stakes decisions • Will the minutes be printed on blue or white paper? • Will the Chair buy dinner for committee members?

19. Person-in-Charge DecidesWithout Discussion • Good for low-stakes decisions • For high-stakes decisions: • Connects authority with accountability • Can create blind spots • By delegation of a group to a leader • In times of crisis • Example • Chair cancels scheduled meeting • Executive Director chooses sweatshirt color

20. Person-in-Charge DecidesAfter Discussion • Combines authority with advice • Can promote giving false advice • Works well using devil’s advocate thinking • May seem wasteful for low-stakes decision • Example • Executive Director chooses meeting locale after considering advice of planning committee

21. Majority Vote • Most commonly used rule • Group can decide on majority level • Simple, 51% • Two-thirds • Creates winners and losers • Works well for quick low-stakes decisions

22. Enthusiastic Support • Strives for unanimity, but recognizes it is not always possible • Very good for high-stakes decisions • Support is registered on a scale • Characterizes degree of support more accurately • Can lead to alternative decision-making rule • Group decides on scale and level of support to use

23. Gradients of Agreement • Endorse • Agree with reservation • Mixed feelings • Don’t like, but won’t block • Veto

24. Rule in Action • Can use colors • Green = complete agreement • Red = VETO • Can use numbers • 5 = Complete agreement • 1 = VETO • Key is to decide before you are considering a proposal

25. Example • To elect a Chair, a Board requires: • That 8 out 10 members register agreement on first three levels, but a veto does not defeat proposal • To remove a member, a committee requires: • That 7 out of 10 members register agreement on the first two levels, that all members vote, and veto defeats proposal

26. Unanimous Agreement • Most involved • Takes time and understanding • All have veto power • Effort is rewarded with sustainability • Example • To recognize an accreditation body, a board requires unanimity

27. Reaching Closure • Last phase of decision-making • Essential and crucial, yet often omitted • If you don’t close it, it remains open • Reach closure via a meta-decision

28. “Meta-Decision” • A decision made by a group or person-in-charge that determines whether a decision on a proposal under discussion can or cannot be made. • You are deciding whether you can decide

29. Example • To approve SOP Policy Committee requires: • RULE: Enthusiastic support • SUPPORT LEVEL*: All votes in top three levels, no vetoes, all members vote • IF NO SUPPORT (IMPASSE): Redraft and reconsider • FINAL CONSIDERATION*: If no support again, simple majority will decide *Meta-decision points: Chair decides when to end discussion

30. Roadmap to Your Decision-Making • Tabulate the types of decisions you make • Assign a rule to each type of decision • Establish how to change an assigned rule • What to do if there is an impasse • Approve the decision-making scheme • By an appropriate rule • Consider the meta-decisions • Document all decisions made

31. Conformance to TNI Mission • Promotes openness • Upfront decisions • Creates transparency • Documents crucial transactions • Ensures inclusiveness • All accounted, all participate

32. In Other Words • Read it • Understand it • Walk it • Implement by May 1, 2008