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