I've been asked to repost my OTR articles on Board Governance to the
AAOLIST. The Board will be making a presentation at the AGM, including Org
Charts and the relevant financial data, but in order to assist me in
ensuring that our presentation answers or touches on all concerns, feedback
from the ethereal community is requested. Please answer on the list for the
benefit of everyone.


Paul J. Henry
Archivist (Community Records)
City of Ottawa Archives
c/o City of Ottawa, mail-code 19-49
111 Sussex Dr.  Ottawa ON  K1N 1J1
tel. (613) 580-2424 x13181
fax. (613) 580-2614

-----
An Introduction to Board Governance: New directions for the AAO
Paul J. Henry, Vice-president

In 1999, with the hiring of its first Executive Director, the Archives
Association of Ontario (AAO) took concrete steps towards fulfilling the
vision articulated in the Genovese Report of a year earlier. Now, three and
a half years later, we can look back at our achievements, most notably:

* a centralized office serving as a first point of contact for members; and,
* a full time staff manning that office and providing advice and guidance on
related services such as ARCHEION and archival standards.

We have been able to maintain and develop services which remain vital to our
membership, including:

* an innovative and dynamic educational and post-appointment training
programme;
* an archives advisor service;
* a preservation advisor; and,
* an Annual Conference.

With the changes in our structure, the AAO has been able to concentrate on
essential matters: running our programmes, making them cost-efficient, and
most importantly - effective. The AAO continues to be the voice of
Archivists and Archives throughout the province. And as we centralize our
programmes, we have been able to provide better overall service to the
membership, while reducing some of the strain on the volunteers who staff
Board and committee positions.

There is more that can be done, however. Current realities, both political
and fiscal, place limits on our growth. By reorganizing the Association,
from the Board down, we not only create effective solutions, we involve the
membership in the process. Only an active and aware membership can create
this environment of success.

This year, in her strategic planning document, President Loryl MacDonald
identified Board Governance as an issue of paramount importance. Over the
past year your Board and Chapter Presidents have been investigating the
various models of Board governance which are best suited to not-for-profit
organizations such as ourselves. Through that process, we have identified
John Carver's Policy Governance Model as the most effective mechanism for
organizing the Association, the Board, Committees and staff reporting
relationships.

"The model enables boards--as "servant-leaders" of shareholders, public,
members (or other "ownership" equivalent)--to ensure that organizations
achieve board-stated goals and conduct themselves with probity," writes
Carver in his introduction.


Future editions of this newsletter, the AAO web site, and the AAOLIST
mailing list will carry further details on how we propose to implement these
changes, as well as discuss the model itself. In the meantime, however, you
can familiarize yourself with the Policy-Governance Model by visiting
<http://www.carvergovernance.com/model.htm>, or by consulting Carver's
Boards that make a difference (Jossey-Bass, 2nd edition, 1997).

-----
Policy Governance (Part II)

Last issue, we discussed the rationale behind the move to Policy Governance,
and why the Board is suggesting this move. In this issue, I'd like to
present an overview of the model, and how it might be implemented using a
particularly AAO approach.

Carver divides Policy, in general, into four types: Ends, Executive
limitations, Governance Process, and Board-Staff relationship. Broadly
speaking, the Board concerns itself, in policy, with determining the Ends
(i.e. the mission, and strategic directions) of the Association, while
limiting the activities of staff -- who are charged with achieving these
ends -- by using limitations (i.e. proscription, not prescription). It
further defines its own job description in Governance Process, and
determines the relationship with staff (i.e. delegation and reporting)
through Board-Staff relationship.

Why this "Ends" focus? By focusing on ends, rather than means, we do not
limit the activities of staff. This allows for creativity. For example, if I
asked you, as my chief executive, to get me a cup of coffee, you could bring
me instant coffee in a paper cup or Samoa Black in a Wedgwood china cup. If
however, I said that I wanted brewed coffee, without cream, and no more than
two sugar, and in procuring this, you cannot spend more than two dollars, I
might get a Columbian coffee blend, in a Styrofoam cup from Starbucks. I
might also get a medium Timmy's in a paper cup. Both satisfy the intended
result. But note that I haven't told you where to go, how to get it, or how
to present it, only that I wanted a certain result. And in the Timmy's case,
I did not get my coffee in a travel mug, because this would have exceeded my
budget. In all cases, policy must answer the question "what good, for what
person, at what cost?"

In addition to writing policy, the Board concerns itself with two other
activities. Firstly, in order to write policy, Board members must
participate in local chapter events and other gatherings of the membership
to solicit feedback on the direction of the Association in order to write
better policy. Secondly, the Board -- having articulated its desired result
through policy -- must monitor the direction of the Association by reviewing
the activities of the Chief Executive (in our case, the Executive Director),
and make changes to ensure that all is as it should be.

Under Policy Governance, the day-to-day running of the Association falls to
the hands of staff, who are professionally trained to carry out whatever
programme they have been hired to do. The strength of the model lies in very
clear delegation and reporting lines. In addition, it allows Board members
to concentrate on those issues of importance to the membership and to the
mission of the Association, rather than on the maintenance of the system
(whether it is Advisory Services, or the Education Programme, or what have
you).

Likewise, the role of Board members as committee chairs changes. The chairs,
who may still be Board members -- but don't have to be -- provide advice and
guidance to staff (i.e. the Executive Director, or the Office Coordinator)
on the carrying out of the various programmes, without burdening the Board
with the day-to-day administration of these programmes. Unless the Board has
asked the Chief Executive to provide more detailed monitoring information
(and it can, if it so desires), the Board spends its time on its job and not
that of staff. The strength here is that, under the model, we have less
volunteer burnout and more decentralization of activity. The end result is
that the Board and committees achieve more, retain dedicated members, and
encourage a greater participation in the Association and its activities
amongst a wider segment of the overall membership.

Because the proposed changes are significant, we -- as a Board -- need the
consent of the membership at large in order to proceed with implementation.
Enclosed with your conference package, you will find further information on
our proposal, and how this will be reflected in the Constitution. I
encourage you to attend the AGM, or through a proxy vote, to let your
opinion be heard.