Trustee Conference AM1: Governance and leadership in the digital era: Using technology to improve governance and transparency

1. Drinks sponsors: GOVERNANCE AND LEADERSHIP IN THE DIGITAL ERA: USING TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE GOVERNANCE AND TRANSPARENCY Karl Wilding, Director of Public Policy and Volunteering, NCVO Tesse Akpeki, Consultant, Bates Wells Braithwaite 7 NOVEMBER 2016 Partner sponsor: Media partner: Lead sponsor:

2. GOVERNANCE AND LEADERSHIP IN THE DIGITAL ERA @KARLWILDING NCVO PUBLIC POLICY & VOLUNTEERING NOVEMBER 2016

3. WHAT I’M GOING TO TALK ABOUT: 1. THE EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT FOR CHARITY LEADERSHIP 2. BECOMING A NETWORKED NONPROFIT 3. THE DIGITAL TRUSTEE 3

5. 5

6. THE BRAVE NEW WORLD OF DOING GOOD

7. 7

10.

11. 2. BECOMING A NETWORKED NONPROFIT 11

12. http://www.brianpatrickwade.com/rotary-international-minimal-

13. 13

14.

15.

16. 16

17.

18. 18

19. 19

20. 20

21. 21

22. 22

23. 3. THE DIGITAL TRUSTEE 23

24.

25. 25

26.

27.

28. 12 questions about digital for trustees https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_ data/file/557962/12_questions_about_digital_for_trustees.pdf Wired to Govern: a trustee's handbook for the digital revolution http://www.bwbllp.com/knowledge/2015/09/16/wired-to-govern-a- trustees/ The New Reality http://thenewreality.info How to Build a Digital Workforce https://knowhownonprofit.org/tools-resources/building-a-digital- workforce

29. Drinks sponsors: GOVERNANCE AND LEADERSHIP IN THE DIGITAL ERA Tesse Akpeki, Consultant, Bates Wells Braithwaite Partner sponsor: Media partner: Lead sponsor:

30. IMPACT ON GOVERNANCE Use of social media and other electronic media will have an impact on range of governance issues Decision making Meetings Risk management Communication Code of Conduct Guidelines Good practice and legal implications

31. BOARD DECISION MAKING -LEGAL Need for express provision in governing document At common law, company directors have power to make decisions outside meetings but must be unanimous Express provisions in governing document advisable Unanimous or majority decision ? Problem if conflicted trustees

32. BOARD DECISION MAKING BY EMAIL If no express power, advisable to ratify at next board meeting Alternative ways to make decisions between meetings ad hoc or standing committee telephone conference call

33. BOARD MEETINGS BY CONFERENCE CALL Express provision in governing document advisable If none, means used must allow trustees to both hear and see each other ( CC48 Charities and Meetings)

34. RISK MANAGEMENT Risk of defamation Bring your own device/Choose your own device Data subject access requests Security for on line giving Security of personal data Safeguarding issues

35. APPLICATION OF CODE OF CONDUCT Principles are the same but increased impact Rules of the road are essential Confidentiality tweeting during/after board meetings ? respect collective responsibility Integrity how far use of social media in private life relevant ? Bullying and harassment Data protection Safeguarding

36. GUIDELINES ON OTHER MATTERS Security of trustees’ accounts Procedures for tweeting on behalf of charity by trustees Charity Commission Guidance

37. OTHER ISSUES What about trustees who cannot or will not use new technology ? If trustees have access to more information is there the risk of micro management?

Notas do Editor

So, if we’re going to move forward the debate on what ‘gold standard’ transparency’ looks like then I think that we need to move the debate beyond the narrow confines of money and instead think about the broader way that organisations might function or work and think about what being an open, networked nonprofit might mean for them. As a starter for 10, I think we need to debate what gold standard transparency might mean across these 7 domains. And for the avoidance of doubt, lets be clear: gold standard is not a euphemism for more. I cant agree with those who seek to give transparency a bad name by simply dumping data or producing 200 page annual reports and accounts: obfuscation via increased disclosure is a classic strategy that ultimately has the opposite effect to what is needed. Gold standard transparency is about better, not more; it is about data and narrative, about stories and explanations, so that data is not marooned and left to others to explain. Gold standard transparency is about process and how we work, not just counting outputs (or even outcomes), so that our stakeholders can ‘puncture the membrane’, so that they can see inside – a real opportunity given our challenge of public understanding
Organising without organisations has become ridiculously easy If so, are traditiona voluntary organisations still relevant? Will people who give their time see us as the vehicles for giving time? If so, we need to adapt to a digital world
People want to do good. They don’t care in which sector they do it. So for the time precious, the cash poor, the outcome is the same: if they don’t think that we are using their resource to make the biggest impact, we wont be in the business of doing good. Note this is a relative proposition, not an absolute. It’s no longer good enough to say we do good in the voluntary sector.
We’re all investors now: shift from altruism to reciprocity and return New breed of social investors: earned not inherited wealth; demand metrics; comfortable with technology and (big) data; want scale and replication These all point to a new wave of doing good based on making a difference
Source: https://twitter.com/stevebridger/status/461029280630067201 I’ve just touched on digital and its impact on campaigning Final section of my PEST analysis is about digital, which is disrupting all aspects of how charities operate and how they are run. In some cases, as with this board, digital is most definitely not disruptive; but that doesn’t mean it isnt shaping other organisations in your space or the field you work in. Indeed, some of the most innovative stuff in our sector is where social action and technology collide creatively.
So, if we’re going to move forward the debate on what ‘gold standard’ transparency’ looks like then I think that we need to move the debate beyond the narrow confines of money and instead think about the broader way that organisations might function or work and think about what being an open, networked nonprofit might mean for them. As a starter for 10, I think we need to debate what gold standard transparency might mean across these 7 domains. And for the avoidance of doubt, lets be clear: gold standard is not a euphemism for more. I cant agree with those who seek to give transparency a bad name by simply dumping data or producing 200 page annual reports and accounts: obfuscation via increased disclosure is a classic strategy that ultimately has the opposite effect to what is needed. Gold standard transparency is about better, not more; it is about data and narrative, about stories and explanations, so that data is not marooned and left to others to explain. Gold standard transparency is about process and how we work, not just counting outputs (or even outcomes), so that our stakeholders can ‘puncture the membrane’, so that they can see inside – a real opportunity given our challenge of public understanding
Stop telling us how this is new and noone has done it before or that social sector orgs are too small and cant scale their own platforms. This is just not true. Look at Rotary, the Scouts or Guides, Lions, the Co-op movement. The problem here is that we need a discussion about the nature of scaling and scale – the single most overused term in the nonprofit sector. We also need to talk about replication and whether we are trying to scale organisations or ideas and interventions.
So, if we’re going to move forward the debate on what ‘gold standard’ transparency’ looks like then I think that we need to move the debate beyond the narrow confines of money and instead think about the broader way that organisations might function or work and think about what being an open, networked nonprofit might mean for them. As a starter for 10, I think we need to debate what gold standard transparency might mean across these 7 domains. And for the avoidance of doubt, lets be clear: gold standard is not a euphemism for more. I cant agree with those who seek to give transparency a bad name by simply dumping data or producing 200 page annual reports and accounts: obfuscation via increased disclosure is a classic strategy that ultimately has the opposite effect to what is needed. Gold standard transparency is about better, not more; it is about data and narrative, about stories and explanations, so that data is not marooned and left to others to explain. Gold standard transparency is about process and how we work, not just counting outputs (or even outcomes), so that our stakeholders can ‘puncture the membrane’, so that they can see inside – a real opportunity given our challenge of public understanding
Martha Payne’s school lunch: the 9 yr old was banned from blogging by the local council Her website has had 10m hits http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2211691/Martha-Payne-banned-blogging-disgusting-dinners-gives-thumbs-breakfast-visits-African-children.html
John Snow – work like a bookkeeper, think like a poet The point is that how we communicate impact is a big challenge. We need stories and campaigns to go along with better evidence and data
Flood volunteers: interesting because a) its private sector, and b) it uses technology in a way that is useful at a local level, whilst disintermediating local infrastructure. I think that there’s an analogy here with record stores. Would be nice to work this one up – particularly as record stores, and the resurgence of vinyl, show that every big trend has a counter trend
So, if we’re going to move forward the debate on what ‘gold standard’ transparency’ looks like then I think that we need to move the debate beyond the narrow confines of money and instead think about the broader way that organisations might function or work and think about what being an open, networked nonprofit might mean for them. As a starter for 10, I think we need to debate what gold standard transparency might mean across these 7 domains. And for the avoidance of doubt, lets be clear: gold standard is not a euphemism for more. I cant agree with those who seek to give transparency a bad name by simply dumping data or producing 200 page annual reports and accounts: obfuscation via increased disclosure is a classic strategy that ultimately has the opposite effect to what is needed. Gold standard transparency is about better, not more; it is about data and narrative, about stories and explanations, so that data is not marooned and left to others to explain. Gold standard transparency is about process and how we work, not just counting outputs (or even outcomes), so that our stakeholders can ‘puncture the membrane’, so that they can see inside – a real opportunity given our challenge of public understanding
If new social change is the first driver, tight public finances are the second Foundations also under pressure – not just govt Need to think about cashable savings that result from spending money on, for example, volunteer management

Trustee Conference AM1: Governance and leadership in the digital era: Using technology to improve governance and transparency

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Semelhante a Trustee Conference AM1: Governance and leadership in the digital era: Using technology to improve governance and transparency

Semelhante a Trustee Conference AM1: Governance and leadership in the digital era: Using technology to improve governance and transparency (20)

Mais de NCVO - National Council for Voluntary Organisations

Mais de NCVO - National Council for Voluntary Organisations (20)

Último

Último (20)

Trustee Conference AM1: Governance and leadership in the digital era: Using technology to improve governance and transparency

Notas do Editor