Procedure for Making Policy and New Programming Decisions

From ClimateNetworkWiki

This document will be reviewed in December 09

Passed on July 24, 2009

Preamble

This proposal outlines a participatory process for making serious programming changes or taking positions on external policy between province-wide gatherings. It was developed through extensive deliberation in the Network Relations Working Group (NR) at the request of the Coordinating Committee. This procedure is intended to supplement, not supersede, decision making at face-to-face, BC-wide meetings. However, it will allow decisions to be made by the network in between such gatherings.

Objectives

The following objectives were considered in the design of this procedure:

1. Participation: The procedure is designed to secure the participation of all of our stakeholders. It is hoped the scheme will also serve as an engagement tool, allowing students to give contribute to the governance of the project as a way to go beyond. 2. Legitimacy: Because we value participatory governance, it is essential that the consent of the network is obtained before serious programming changes are made or policy stances are taken. 3. Capacity: Any new decision making procedure must be cognisant of the project’s capacity 4. Caution: Big decisions are not to be made lightly, and a rigorous decision making procedure can serve to infuse caution into the project’s governance. This is especially important if the project is to adopt non-post secondary policy stances, a direction about which many participants at the last programming development summit were hesitant. 5. Efficiency: Many decision need to be made in a timely manner, and the procedure aims to make all decision which fall under its criteria within one month, or the time between steering committee calls.

Definitions

A policy stance will be defined as a decision which meets at least one of the following criteria:

1. Adopts a public policy stance or works on an equivalent external campaign on a matter outside the realm of post-secondary education. 2. Adopts new government lobbying priorities. 3. Partners goBEYOND with another organization in a way that associates goBEYOND with its policy stances.

A serious programming change will be defined as a decision which meets at least one of the following criteria:

1. Cancels a significant piece of programming. 2. Adds a new piece of programming costing more than $3000 in cash or staff-time equivalent without added additional capacity to implement it. 3. Significantly departs from programming agreed to at the programming development summit.

Procedure

1. Initiation

If a matter discussed at the steering committee meets the definition of a serious programming change or a policy stance, as decided by at least one member of the steering committee, the question must go through the procedure outlined in this document.

1. Design of Survey

The steering committee must first outline all options it will accept or all options it will not accept. During this process the Steering Committee will consider financial and reputation costs of new directions. After this, it agrees to accept the decision generated by this procedure. The decision is then passed to Network Relations Working Group which will guide the decision through this procedure. NR is responsible the design of the survey, and members of the steering committee have the option of assisting them. Surveys may have either a yes-no or dot-mocracy format.

1. Distribution of Survey

The survey will be distributed to all the network’s “participants.” An individual can become a participant if he or she agrees to support the mission and values of the network and abide by certain guidelines (which have not yet been developed). Participants can be suspended or expelled for breaking this agreement. People can be asked to become participants after taking the Challenge and at goBEYOND events. Participants will be centrally tracked.

1. First Round of Survey

The surveys will be sent electronically. If the survey is yes-no, at least 75% of the votes must be yes for the decision to be made. “Yes” is always deviation from current programs or policies. “No” is always the status quo. If the survey has multiple options, participants will vote through dot-mocracy. When the survey consists of 2-4 options, participants will have 3 dots each. When the survey consists of 5 or more options, participants will have 5 dots. Participants may place all dots on the same option, place two dots on one option and one on another, place all three dots on different option, or place less than three dots on the options. If a single option receives more than 75% of the dots, a decision is made. If no option receives more that 75% of the dots, the survey goes into the second round. If a participants wish to suggest additional options or change the options in the survey, they may contact NR. It is up to NR’s discretion to decide whether the survey will be altered and sent out again.

Subsequent Rounds

If NR decides to alter the survey based on feedback, they may do so and send the survey out again. If no option receives greater than 75% of the dots, the option with a plurality of dots (more dots than any other option) is framed as a yes-no question and sent out for another survey. It must then receive 75% of votes in a yes-no vote to pass. Participants have the option of registering strong opposition during yes-no votes and writing the reason for their opposition. If more than 5% of those who vote register strong opposition, their writings must be published for all participants to see and the vote must be redone. The redo is subject to the same 75% threshold.

Back to Campus Climate Network