Autonomy

From an email in response to my last blog item: "You seem to want considerable autonomy from the MFS committee but you want them to provide the BDDG with insurance". As always, for every person that takes the trouble to write, there are probably a dozen who think similarly but don't write, so I appreciate the email and the chance to respond. Your comments are also welcome, just click the "comments" link below.

I don't keep on going on about autonomy because I want to be separate from the MFS.  I am mounting a totally open, legitimate and important debate about the matter because good management with proper delegation of responsibility will lead to expansion and growth, and bad management ("micro-management") will stifle that expansion and growth, even put it into reverse. 

We live in a democracy and we have freedom of expression of such opinions. And I have seen no evidence that the insurance policy requires bad management. However the MFS Committee can choose to subject the members to time wasting management practices, and the only remedy for members is to vote in a different committee next time. Or, unfortunately more likely, vote with their feet.

No-one has time to waste waiting for "authorisation" of their legitimately made decisions. If I am negotiating to perform at Government House, I am going to close the deal, not tell them that my "head office" have to sign off before I am allowed to do that. It's not a policy decision, it is routine business and needs to be simply covered by our group's delegation to run that business, with proper reporting after the event. Same as the Government House side are empowered to book whatever acts they can secure, on the spot, if their organisation is well managed.

But delegation is not neglect. MFS Committee needs to exercise responsible oversight of the affairs of the society as a whole. MFS has statutory requirements that all financial transactions of the society are included in society reporting and able to be audited, and assets belonging to the society are listed in the annual financial statements.  MFS Committee remains responsible for all outcomes and needs to take "supervisory" action where needed - staffing, mentoring, counselling, training, or requesting information.

MFS Organisers are accountable for their decisions and should be keeping MFS Committee fully informed of results and issues, etc. We need a budget process that authorises event organisers well before they have to start selecting and negotiating with venues and bands and the myriad other things they have to organise, and we need regular reporting by event organisers to MFS Committee.

Once having delegated an activity, the appropriate way for MFS Committee to ensure that it is carried out satisfactorily is by reporting and review, not by direct action. That's particularly so in an organisation of co-operating but autonomous volunteers like our own.

Cheers

Lance

Insurance of Activities Run by MFS Event Organisers

I am a primary contact for The Bush Dancers display group, an activity of the MFS. We value our autonomy and cultural ownership of our own activity. We promote bush dancing based on collected Australian music and dance, and reckon we do a pretty good job of it. Have a look at http://canberradance.org/tbdeventpics.htm for a bit of an idea of what we do.

I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories, but I am very concerned that MFS Committee have failed to disclose what our insurance coverage is, and have kept their meetings, agendas and minutes a closely guarded secret. What are they hiding? I have just written reminding MFS Committee of my emails dated 9 April, 9 May, and 13 October requesting the public liability insurance conditions. I have not yet received the requested documents. It is now two months since the AGM and there has been no consultation with members on matters to be discussed by the committee, nor any notification of agendas etc.

I am worried about the decline in MFS member numbers and in member commitment to the MFS, and, based on various statements, I am concerned that our insurance may not be suitable for a decentralised conglomerate like the MFS. 

We don't want the MFS to end up like a knitting circle or something similar, small enough for the  MFS Committee to micro-manage everything. The MFS is a free association of autonomous activities and that means MFS Committee have to delegate responsibility to well-defined organising teams, and hold them accountable for results. If you can't delegate you can't manage.

The good news is that proper division of responsibilities and business-like relations are easier for all concerned. No second-guessing, no impasses, everyone taking care of their own business to achieve the results they want. The MFS Committee needs to take a strategic leadership role, consider reports, make important decisions that affect the whole society, and attend to their own details like insurance and consolidated accounts.

Obviously an organisation of delegated managers is insurable. No-one would expect the Board of Woolworths to tell the meat manager when to put out more chops, or tell the baker how many rolls to bake. They tried centralised planning like that in Russia and it was never going to work. There are many layers of delegation of responsibility in any successful organisation. Decisions are made and implemented at the right level to achieve the right results.

The question is, how can MFS event organisers achieve insurance of their activities under their own existing good management, if the policy taken out by MFS Committee is unsuitable? And how can we find out whether it is or not?

I would love to hear your comments, either by email or right here.

Cheers

Lance