Print-friendly version of TCA

During April and May of 2002, Association Xpertise Inc. (AXI) conducted a survey of associations and non-profits. Focusing on Association and Non-Profit Operations, the survey was the second in AXI’s Association FAQs Survey series.

Of the 262 participating organizations, just over 51% were provincial or regional in scope, 30% were national, and 13% were local. The remaining 6% were international in scope.

Thirty-two per cent of the participating organizations were industry, trade or business associations, 25% were organizations with a health, social welfare, religious or educational focus, 24% were professional or occupational organizations, 10% were special or common interest organizations, and the remaining 9% were sport, art or cultural organizations.

Forty-seven per cent of the respondents were based in Ontario, 21% in Alberta, 18% in B.C., 9% in Saskatchewan, 3% in Manitoba, and 2% in Quebec or Atlantic Canada.

Two-thirds of the organizations lease office space, and another 14% own their space. The other options of shared space, contracted office/management, and virtual or home office accounted for only 20% of the respondents.

Even with the cost pressures confronting associations and non-profits, the use of less expensive office arrangements remains very low.

The issue of whether an organization is spending too little or too much on staffing is difficult to determine. In this survey, we explored payroll costs as a percentage of annual revenue to provide a basis for comparison between organizations. These results were broken down by type of organization, revenue range, and scope of organization.

As expected, there were significant variations in the ratio between these various individual segments. The overall ratio for all participating organizations was 38.7% (payroll as a % of total annual revenue).

While the newer products such as Great Plains (for larger associations) and Quickbooks (for smaller associations) are gaining ground, the AccPac family of products (Simply Accounting for smaller associations and AccPlus Plus for larger associations) still hold a significant share of the market.

While there are now a large number of software options to manage association memberships and operations, seven of the leading off-the-shelf solutions still account for less than 15% of the options in use. Custom databases, and Access databases for smaller associations, still dominate the options in use.

Surprisingly, there were only 2 of the 12 areas of activity where 50% or more of the organizations indicate some level of outsourcing. Those were technology support (hardware and software) at 60% and Web Site maintenance and/or updating at 55%.

Only 28% reported outsourcing some or all of the accounting/bookkeeping function, and only 18% for event planning and management. A very low figure of 5% was reported for order processing or fulfillment, and only 7% reported outsourcing some program management. Ad, booth or sponsorship sales were outsourced in whole or in part by only 10% of the respondents.

In this age of e-commerce and focus on member service and value, one would think that the acceptance of on-line payments would be a given in most organizations. However, only 22% pf the participating organizations reported that they accepted payments over the Internet!

Participants raised a number of challenging and impending issues that will require the attention of staff and/or volunteers. Technology issues were front and centre, however membership service, revenue generation/resource allocation, staffing, administration, program and governance support were also common response areas. This range and scope of issues represents a growing challenge for the skills, abilities and time of association staff given that they may have their plate full addressing the day-to-day matters. The growing complexity and sophistication of the environment in which they operate will be a major challenge for organizations, and how they deal with the broad scope and level of externally driven change will determine the future success of their organizations.

The results of this survey suggest that many associations and non-profits have not adopted new methods of doing business and the new tools available to them. Rather, for the most part, they have stuck with traditional and familiar choices.

Are these organizations cruising along in a productive groove with their finely tuned systems and tools? Or do they progress primarily in ruts deepened by an aversion to risk, lack of expertise, and a penchant for traditional approaches? Our sense is that the latter is closer to reality than the former.

Participants in the survey have been provided with the full report on the results.

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

VIEWPOINT

The Cost of Governance

One philosophy of policy governance that I believe all organizations should embrace is that poor governance costs more than learning to govern well. That is, directors need orientation, training and outside support as needed to enable them to learn and function as an effective board.

Do you have funds budgeted for external resources for your board? Are you overly parsimonious when it comes to governance? Is director orientation and training given token attention or the importance it deserves? Do you use all the tools (e.g. board policies, board manuals, technology) available to assist boards in fulfilling their governance role and responsibilities? Do you conduct extensive evaluation of the effectiveness of governance in your organization?

While members may not be able to comment on the performance of the Board, they are very likely able to comment on aspects related to governance. Ask members about communications on issues, bylaw change processes, financial communications, etc. Do the members have access to their governance group? Are there opportunities for two-way communications between the board and the membership? Consulting members on the performance of governance is another investment that will reduce the costs of bad governance.

On the other hand, I feel that organizations spend far too much money and time on the illusion and/or trappings of governance. In the former category, I would include expensive communiqués to members that are nothing more than political mumbo-jumbo or platitudes, cross-country meetings with local groups and members without the intent to listen to them, etc. In the latter category, I would include pet projects of Board Chairs, Board election ads that can’t be justified from a corporate communications perspective, expensive board travel and entertainment costs when there is no expectation or evaluation of performance, etc.

Good governance is not as expensive, nor as difficult, as people would have you believe. On the flip side, bad governance has never been more expensive and more frustrating!

Readers are invited to submit their responses in support or disagreement with the views expressed in this column. Direct your comments to the editor.

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

ASSOCIATE COLUMN

Plain Language

The recent publicizing of the report from the Auditor-General has been interesting to follow. The latest report is that the Auditor-General, Sheila Fraser, says that the information uncovered was ‘appalling’. The National Post (May 21, 2002) spends some time discussing not just the information but comments on the word she used. According to the reporter “appalling is not a word often used by bureaucrats, worried what their political masters will think and more comfortable in the world of technical jargon, vague language and hackneyed phrases”.

Associations have similar types of jargon, language and phrases in many of their documents. Bylaws, policies, memos, newsletters are filled to brimming with words that are a jumble. There is a movement afoot that Ms. Fraser is obviously using in her work, that of plain language. It’s intent is to encourage the use of plain language. There are several sites and free newsletters available that offer help to writing letters, reports and specific guides such as medical writing. The one I use and would recommend is pecampaign@aol.com.

One of the best parts of beginning to write in plain language is that you start to see who is not. Here is an example from a recent Plain Language newsletter:

For most of us in association work, a review of our documents might discover similar ‘gobbledy-gook’. Quit appalling, as Ms. Fraser would say.

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

GUEST COLUMN

Re-branding: One Canadian Association Shares Its Experience

Adopting a brand is much more involved then simply a name change, explains Lorne Hepworth, President, CropLife Canada, it involves adopting a new mission, vision and restructuring the organization to fulfill the brand identity. It becomes even more complex when adapting an international brand to a Canadian environment.

Adopting a new name or more frequently a new visual identity has become a common practice in both business and association life. We expect web sites to be continuously redesigned with new looks, often resulting in a new visual identity. What is not as frequent is the adoption of a new brand for an association.

“Adopting a brand is much more involved then simply a name change,” explains Lorne Hepworth, President, CropLife Canada. “For us, it was a comprehensive process that was part of an international movement to reflect the new plant sciences industry.”

“In Canada we adopted plant biotechnology as part of our focus and responsibilities back in 1998, reflecting how the business of our member companies had evolved and changing our mission and vision,” notes Mr. Hepworth. “As a result, when our international association adopted biotechnology and the CropLife brand in 2001, it was a natural fit for Canada to become one of the first national associations to adopt the new brand.

At the international level, CropLife was chosen because it reflected the new identity of the plant science industry. The name underlines the changes in philosophy and evokes positive associations of life and health. When selecting the name CropLife, we broadened our scope by moving away from the crop protection term, which was too narrow given the new inclusion of agricultural biotechnology alongside chemical crop protection.”

CropLife Canada used its 2001 Annual General Meeting and Conference, one of the industry’s largest events, to launch the new brand. Launching the brand involved developing a new visual identity, new communication materials, and guidelines for how they were to be used. CropLife Canada was fortunate that they had international guidelines and materials to work from, and used a graphic design firm to ‘Canadianize’ the international standards.

Beyond the simple visual change, there were a lot of decisions and changes required in adopting the CropLife brand. The process actually began a year before the official announcement when the association was exploring how best to serve its expanded mandate and membership resulting from the addition of the plant biotechnology mandate.

“In 2000, our focus was on developing a five-year strategic plan built around the expansion of our mandate into the broader plant sciences industry,” adds Mr. Hepworth. “The strategic plan included annual work plans for each business unit and a significant restructuring of the association’s internal operations.”

CropLife Canada reorganized its internal operations into business units focusing on the core areas of the plant science industry. A new staff person was added to provide dedicated staff people for both crop protection chemistry and plant biotechnology. This supplemented existing staff dedicated to urban pest management and stewardship initiatives. Support services provided to the business units including government relations and communications were upgraded. To meet outreach goals, a stakeholder relations specialist was added.

“At the same time as our restructuring a similar movement was taking place at the global level,” notes Mr. Hepworth. “The Global Crop Protection Federation, of which we are a member, faced a broadening of its mandate and a recognition that society was demanding more from industry on the issues of transparency and responsibility. As a result, it adopted the notion of building a brand – CropLife - that supports industry’s goal of responding to society’s demands.

The CropLife brand represents a new approach for our industry and their association, it will only come to life through the way that we behave, act, communicate and fulfill our commitment. In adopting the brand, we had to look beyond just a name and determine, how as an association we could meet these objectives and whether our members wanted to.”

Nine months into the new brand, Croplife Canada is still working out some of issues around adopting a new brand.

“With considerable print resources in stock, we are still in the process of using up old branded material,” adds Mr. Hepworth. “To save funds, we are using stickers to brand the books with the new name and logo. As each piece becomes due for reprinting it is being evaluated against the new brand, not only for look, but more importantly, to ensure its consistency with the new messaging and objectives of the CropLife brand.”

The biggest lesson for CropLife Canada has been how adopting the brand challenges members and staff to think differently. Many of the employees and members are the same as the old Crop Protection Institute of Canada, however they need to regularly think of the new brand, and what it means in how they conduct their businesses. A name change does not challenge an association in the same way.

For more information, visit CropLife Canada’s web site (www.croplife.ca) to view its new mission, vision, what we stand for and visual identity.

Glen Rutland is Director, Communications with CropLife Canada. Glen can be reached at rutlandg@croplife.ca.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Association Xpertise Inc.

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

GUEST COLUMN

Policy Governance in 2002

An AXI Interview with Caroline Oliver, chair of the International Policy Governance Association

AXI	As the inaugural Chair of the International Policy Governance Association (IPGA), tell us about the organization's mission, who the members are, and what you do for them?
Oliver	Our mission sits in a context that recognizes that Policy Governance® is a means to an end, and we have expressed that end in our Governance Process policies as ‘Owner Accountable Productive Organizations’. Within that overall context, the Association’s mission is ‘High Quality Policy Governance Implementation’. We govern on behalf of “everyone who is committed to the integrity of Policy Governance implementation” which includes users and consultants. Our full members are individuals who can demonstrate a high level of training and experience in Policy Governance implementation. Our wider membership includes organizational members and individual supporters. At this stage, our members are doing as much or more for us as we are doing for them. We offer a newsletter ‘Governance Excellence’, discounts on ‘Board Leadership’ journal and other Jossey-Bass publications as well as discounts on certain Policy Governance training programs and events. However, the main thing we offer is the opportunity to participate in a movement to take governance is all sectors to a new level of excellence.
AXI	You have implemented the Policy Governance model in the IPGA. How is that working?
Oliver	Before I answer that question I want to say that I am beginning to want to avoid the term ‘model’ as a descriptor of Policy Governance. People seem to be using the term ‘model’ to describe every possible kind of board arrangement but Policy Governance is not a particular kind of board arrangement. Policy Governance is a comprehensive operating system that can apply to the governance work of any board no matter how it is currently arranged. Turning to your question. When we started we had no staff at all. Now we have a volunteer CEO and several other volunteer management roles. We have used Policy Governance throughout to separate governance issues from management issues. Thus initially we divided our agendas. We were the board for the first half of our meetings and the senior management team for the second half. This worked but having a board playing both governance and management roles and the lack of a CEO clearly limited what could be accomplished and we wanted to grow as soon as possible. When Howard Stier volunteered to be our CEO life became a lot easier. Some board members still do some management work but are volunteers accountable to the CEO for that aspect of their contribution.
AXI	What is John Carver's relationship, if any, with the IPGA?
Oliver	John is definitely supportive of our efforts and we recently took him up on his offer to hold an Advanced Workshop in Atlanta with proceeds going to the IPGA. However, he has no official role in the Association and is careful not to offer advice or opinions unless we ask for them. John is important to the Association both because we want to give credit where credit is due and because the link between Policy Governance and his name helps to identify Policy Governance as a distinct mode of board operation.
AXI	The anecdotal evidence suggests that inconsistent implementation of the policy governance model is an ongoing problem. What advice do you provide to groups considering implementation of the model? (other than hiring one of your members)
Oliver	In regard to initial implementation, the challenge is to establish very strong commitment from the beginning. To establish this commitment, there is no substitute for the board spending a lot of time and energy examining its governance job and searching out ideas and tools to support it in doing the best possible job. If and when, out of this exploration, it decides that Policy Governance is the way it wants to go, it is vital that board members get thorough knowledge about Policy Governance from authoritative sources such as ‘Boards That Make a Difference’ by John Carver (Jossey Bass, 1999) or introductions lead by qualified consulting assistance. The Association aims to be in a position to certify Policy Governance consultants in a few years time but for now completion of the Policy Governance Academy with the Carvers is the best indicator (rather than guarantee) of competence Talking about sustaining implementation, the problem is very simple. Boards create policies and then ignore them. The answer is therefore very simple – use your policies. I advise asking three questions about every issue that comes to the board table: What policy category does this issue belong to? What have we already said in policy about this issue? Are we happy with what we have already said? This simple discipline together with rigorous policy monitoring keeps boards on track. However it is unrealistic to expect any human system to operate without hitches. Boards may sometimes want outside help to keep everything running well. Maintaining a good governance operating system is a bit like maintaining your home – getting educated about simple do-it-yourself routines helps enormously but it also pays to get appropriate help at the right time.
AXI	There are also lots of organizations that say they have implemented the policy governance model in their organizations, but they may have implemented only aspects of the model. What do you say to those organizations?
Oliver	It depends. Let’s analyse the “aspects of the model”. First of all we have a set of universal governance principles. The most fundamental of these principles hold the board’s corporate voice to be the initial and final authority within an organisation on behalf of owners. A board that subverts these principles is, I believe, failing to do their duty – these are moral imperatives. A second “aspect” is the distinction between ends and means and the definition of ends as ‘what benefit, for whom and at what cost?’ A board that is unable to clearly identify what their organization is for is failing to be the initial authority. A third aspect is the four policy categories. Call them what you will – if the board does not cover them all (ends and means), they are failing to take control over some aspect of their accountability. A third aspect is the ‘decisions within decisions’ hierarchy together with the concept of ‘bounded authority’ and the ‘any reasonable interpretation’ rule. A board that ignores these aspects has forgone the possibility of being able to balance control and empowerment in their delegation to others. A fourth aspect is the practice of policy monitoring without which the board’s words are meaningless rhetoric. What I say about these aspects is that there isn’t a single one of them that can be dispensed with for governance excellence for it is the combination of them that produces a coherent and comprehensive operating system for governance. However there are aspects of the model’s application that can be varied because they are not critical to its functionality. Thus these would not qualify as “aspects of the model” but as advice about arrangements that may make governance more difficult and/or might jeopardise the principles on which Policy Governance is based. Large boards, board members playing staff roles and having no CEO would be examples of arrangements that make governance more difficult but can be made to work. In other examples, having an Executive Committee that does preparatory work for full board decision and having a board see the budget as part of its monitoring of its policy criteria on financial planning and budgeting can be fine. But beware the Executive Committee making decisions for the board (and therefore undermining owners’ authority which was vested in the whole board) and beware undermining the comprehensiveness and validity of the board’s policy framework by acting outside of that framework.
AXI	There are lots of supporters as well as lots of critics of the policy governance model. What would you see as its greatest strengths and its greatest weaknesses?
Oliver	I think it is indisputable that Policy Governance is ‘the state of the art’ when it comes to governance models. Its greatest strengths are: it starts from moral imperatives about what governing is ‘for’ and therefore is based on universal and timeless principles its structure allows each board to control everything about an organization to the precise degree that they as an individual group feel necessary – no more and no less it creates clear criteria for rigorous monitoring it gives the CEO the ability to ‘get on with the job’ once the board has defined it it puts linkage with owners and developing vision at the forefront of board leadership I see Policy Governance as an ideal and the weaknesses as being not in the design itself but in our ability to communicate it and use it. Better communication and application are of course at the heart of the International Policy Governance Association’s job. I do see that we can and will one day improve upon Policy Governance but first we need to understand why Sir Adrian Cadbury has called Policy Governance “as near a universal theory of governance as we at present have”^1. and to learn how to do it well. I would like to address the weaknesses that critics raise; - Some say that Policy Governance distances the board from the organization. My response is that boards exist to translate owners’ wishes into organizational performance. Boards therefore need to be close first of all to the organization’s owners. They can and should also be as close to the organization as they feel is necessary to successfully create and monitor the policies that govern the organization on owners’ behalf. If they choose to be even closer than strictly necessary to do their job, that’s fine too as long as they do their job. - Some, particularly in the corporate world, say that Policy Governance ignores the reality that the CEO leads the board. I believe that the CEO is accountable to the board and the board is accountable to owners – that may not be the everyday reality but it is a legal and moral reality and a fundamental principle that cannot be sacrificed without endangering our society’s democratic health. - A more common criticism is that Policy Governance requires too much discipline. Let’s not forget that a group organizing a picnic requires discipline. Why would we expect that governing an entire organization for 365 days a year would be any different? As I have explained above, Policy Governance disciplines are simply a matter of filtering all decisions through the board’s existing policies and monitoring their implementation. As human beings we often resist discipline but we also know that we don’t usually get to be good at anything without it. - Another criticism is that Policy Governance is too hierarchically oriented. My response is that it is a legal fact that boards are the highest authority within an organization. Choosing a leadership style is another issue. Policy Governance boards tend to seek wide-ranging input for policy making (from owners, staff, others in their environment and each other) and can give as much freedom as they choose at other decision-making at other levels. Indeed we sometimes hear the opposite criticism, that Policy Governance gives away too much power, the board is too ‘hands off’? On this I would say that Policy Governance allows the board to give others the precise amount of power that they wish to give – no more, no less. Policy Governance does not tell a board where to draw the line – it provides a framework such that the line, wherever the board draws it, is absolutely clear. - What lies behind many criticisms is a natural reaction against anything that does not take into account the current needs of individual boards and organizations. And it is indeed quite clear that Policy Governance has a board starting from what their owners want them to create in the future rather than from what’s so now for themselves or staff. What’s so now must certainly inform the future but it should not be allowed to dictate it. Current board arrangements and operational circumstances are things to be taken into account but boards should be sourcing themselves from first principles not current conditions. - Too rigid and formulaic is another criticism. On this I would agree, Policy Governance is rigid and formulaic but only in the same way that a daytimer or personal organizer is rigid and formulaic. You can put into your policies whatever you want but using the system makes it count. - Some say it is too hard and complex for average board members to follow. Here I would point out that, fundamentally, Policy Governance requires one very simple discipline – governing through policy. The specific policy design rules are no more complex than the rules of most games. Being accountable for everything an organization is and does in a hard and complex job – Policy Governance is a tool for the job.
AXI	Are there particular types of organizations for which the model is more suited or less suited, and why?
Oliver	Question: Are there particular types of organizations for which it is more difficult to keep the governing job separate from other jobs board members may do? Answer, yes. Question: Are there particular types of organizations in which it is more difficult for board members to fulfill their obligation to arrive at speaking with one voice on behalf of all owners rather speaking as individuals on behalf of subsets of owners? Answer, yes. Question: Are there particular types of organizations in which it is more difficult to distinguish owner input from customer input? Answer, yes. These are major challenges for boards. However they exist with or without Policy Governance and do not alter the fact that Policy Governance is suitable for the board’s governing job in every type of organization. Association governance, for example, can be challenged in all the above ways but Policy Governance still applies. Policy Governance simply raises issues that are there anyway and reduces the board’s room for fudging.
AXI	Does the model require an "all or nothing" approach? Why or why not?
Oliver	It depends what you want. If you want a coherent and comprehensive operating system for governance then, as discussed earlier, there are essential elements.
AXI	What do you see as the future for the policy governance model?
Oliver	I believe that we have to acknowledge, reach and consolidate the level of progress that Policy Governance represents before we can move forward. I see the future as one of more widespread Policy Governance adoption and practice as the message about it gets even further spread through the non-profit and public sectors and into the corporate sector. Reflecting upon the extraordinary spread of Policy Governance to date with such modest resources, it is exciting to anticipate what more can be achieved with the new book coming out in September1., the enormous surge in interest following the Enron debacle and the work of the International Policy Governance Association. I see organizations with Policy Governance experience from all sectors helping to develop tools for successful ongoing implementation. I see research into the merits of Policy Governance as a tool for creating ‘owner accountable productive organizations’ and research into organizations’ ability to put it into practice. I see systemic development of Policy Governance across boards in whole communities - geographic, interest and industry. I see owners getting more engaged in demanding governance excellence. I see the principles behind Policy Governance becoming non-negotiable norms and I see ideas for design improvements based on those principles constantly emerging and being translated into tools that will create the next generation of governance excellence.

	For more information on the International Policy Governance Association see www.policygovernanceassociation.org.

	Caroline can be reached through the Association at coliver@policygovernanceassociation.org* or through her website*: www.carolineoliver.com



^1.‘Corporate Boards that Create Value: Governing Company Performance from the Boardroom’ by John Carver and Caroline Oliver, Foreword by Sir Adrian Cadbury, will be published in July 2002 by Jossey-Bass, a Wiley company.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Association Xpertise Inc.

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

GUEST COLUMN

Some Simple Guidelines for Merger Discussions

It is early June 2002 as I write this article. The Canadian Association of Financial Planners (CAFP) is in the midst of merger negotiations with the Canadian Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors (CAIFA). The preliminary indication by members of both organizations is that there is much positive support for the deal to be consummated. The members vote in September 2002. Until then, anything can happen.

Our two organizations first began having merger discussions over two years ago. An initial attempt to set out a discussion framework failed. Since then, there has been the occasional informal conversation between the leaders, but nothing concrete. Last fall, CAIFA undertook a new formal initiative. They appealed directly to our membership, outlining the merits of a merger from their perspective. Our members responded and our Board agreed to participate in the talks once again.

CAFP decided to approach these discussions by playing the role of the pursued lover. If CAIFA wanted us so badly, then we would only do the deal if certain objectives that were important to us were met. Here then are some thoughts that may help you if you find yourself being pursued.

1. Identify those principles important to your culture which you will neither compromise nor abandon

Many people understand the term “financial planner” to mean mutual fund salesperson. In fact, that’s completely incorrect. When a professional financial planner is engaged, the client receives a comprehensive analysis of his/her financial state of affairs. This analysis identifies the client’s financial goals and the current state of his/her finances. The planner then produces written recommendations on how to get from the present to the future and help attain the identified goals. Only then does the prospect of selling some financial product(s) enter the picture. This methodology is referred to as the Six Step process. It is the principal trait that characterizes the professional financial planner and distinguishes him/her from all the rest who call themselves financial planners, but who really just want to sell you some mutual funds or life insurance.

CAFP decided that in any merged organization, this unique quality of the professional planner had to be preserved or there could be no deal.

Forget about what each organization has achieved on its own in the past. Focus on what you can achieve together in the future. Know where you are going, how you are going to get there, and what you are going to do when you arrive. The merger then just becomes a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

3. Know the Difference between a Merger and a Takeover. Pursue the Former, Shun the Latter

CAIFA’s membership is approximately five times larger than CAFP’s. While each organization has its own unique attributes, there are many shared programs and processes. A merger presents several attractive opportunities. One is the chance to start over in a new organization with a blank sheet of paper and do things differently. In our discussions, we said that we would take the best of CAFP and the best of CAIFA and put them together in the new organization. Each would leave our bad stuff behind. The beneficiaries of this approach would be the members of the new organization.

This “best of the best” notion isn’t possible if the smaller group is just subsumed into the larger group. We felt that if this were to happen, then all vestiges of the CAFP culture would be lost. We don’t want to turn CAIFA members into CAFP members. Neither do we want to turn CAFP Members into CAIFA Members. If our culture was in peril, we wouldn’t do the deal.

If you are serious about pursuing a successful merger, this is not the time to engage in games of one-upmanship. You wouldn’t be talking if the other side wasn’t aware of your qualities. You are not doing this deal for your benefit. You’re doing it to add value to the membership of both organizations.

Bringing together two cultures will inevitably lead to some discord. If the merger is to come about, both parties will have to give up something if they want to avoid turning the key issues into the key stumbling blocks. That doesn’t mean that you will always reach consensus. However, the more flexible and pragmatic the negotiators, the better the chance of seeing the merger result.

6. Keep the Lawyers, Accountants and Consultants Out of the Picture Until the End

Not a lot of elaboration needed here. Yes, you need their expert advice, but not in the beginning and not on every issue. Wait until you have most of the agreement worked out between you, and then bring them in and tell them to make it happen. (Be prepared for alternative suggestions to the decisions you’ve already made.)

Over the course of the negotiations, you will be amazed at the number of issues on which you will agree. At some point, you will speculate that nothing will stop the merger from succeeding. Inevitably, one or two last issues will remain unresolved. Don’t fall into the trap of forcing a bad deal so as not to waste all of the good work done to that point.

If the unresolved issues involve non-negotiable principles, then you have to walk away. Your members will understand and they will appreciate your honesty. Both you and your merger partner will have to look long and hard into the mirror to see if there is a way to resolve the matter amicably. In some cases, there may not be such an option. It happens.

The merger of two organizations can be an exciting event if both sides approach it honestly and with good intentions. I believe that a combined organization offers many more opportunities for accomplishment than what would have been available from the predecessors operating on their own.

Terry Taylor is President of the Canadian Association of Financial Planners. Terry can be reached at ttaylor@cafp.org.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Association Xpertise Inc.

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

AXI NEWS

AXI Launches Association Life™ Cartoon

AXI president Wayne Amundson announces another AXI first – a business cartoon called Association Life™. “While it seems like a fairly trivial matter, one has few choices when you look for cartoons to lighten up presentations on association and non-profit governance and management topics. And, there are no choices when looking for Canadian-specific content,” stated Amundson.

The purpose of this creative new offering from AXI is to highlight particular issues and perspectives with respect to Canadian association and non-profit organizations, and to present them in a humorous manner. Amundson adds, “Sometimes the best way to get a point across is to do it with humour.”

Effective Chairing and Minute-Taking Standards Workshops in Calgary

Bylaws and Board Policies Session at Percy Page Centre in Edmonton

Wayne Amundson and Carol Humphries of Association Xpertise Inc. will be bringing a fresh perspective on bylaws and board policies to an anticipated full house at the Percy Page Centre in Edmonton. Contact Wayne Amundson for details on how you can bring this presentation in-house for your Board.

Vitalize 2002, sponsored by the Wild Rose Foundation and Alberta Community Development, will be held in Calgary on June 13 –15, 2002. This event is expected to attract 1,400 delegates from approximately 180 communities and over 900 organizations. AXI will be attending and exhibiting at this event which is targeted to staff, board members and other volunteers of not-for-profit organizations from across Alberta.

Privacy Sessions Scheduled for Regina and Saskatoon

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

TIPS, TOOLS & RESOURCES

Association CEOs, managers and volunteer leaders frequently facilitate sessions or meetings involving staff, volunteers, members and third parties. The intent of this regular column is to expose readers to various facilitation tools, how they work, and when they should be used.

Are you starting a new group, joining an existing group, or trying to make your current group more effective? Whether the group is temporary, or will be around for a longer period, it will likely go through the four stages as defined in the 'Orming Model for Developing Effective Groups -- Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing.

One of the first steps when starting or joining a group is to determine at what stage the group is at. Look for the following indicators:

While the obvious goal is to get to the Performing stage as soon as possible, it is a fruitless exercise to attempt to skip stages in the development of the group. And yet groups attempt it regularly. The result is a general distrust of groups and an assumption that a group will be unproductive. It is no wonder people resist joining teams and work groups.

The following shows the steps that must be undertaken in each stage, and what symptoms will persist if the steps are not undertaken.

Once the group's current stage has been identified, the work can begin to take the group through uncompleted work in prior stages, and to the work in the remaining stages. The key questions that must be answered in each stage are:

Still have a strong task orientation? Resist it, and give process orientation and the 'Orming model a try. You may surprise yourself and others with a high-performance group!

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

TIPS, TOOLS & RESOURCES

The information provided in Clarity....by AXI serves one very important purpose - to provide readers with sufficient understanding of an issue so that they are able to identify potential issues within their organization and then, when necessary, discuss, challenge and question the advice of their internal or external paid advisor related to that issue as it impacts their organization. With that purpose in mind, we will provide information in very clear, non-technical language and we will use the word "generally" and its synonyms a great deal. Much of the complexity of technical and/or legal topics relates to the language used and the need to address every conceivable and obscure exception. This column is for information purposes only, and AXI will not be responsible for any errors or omissions...consult your paid advisor before acting.

It is a reasonably common occurrence. A situation has arisen and you do not have any bylaws, rules or policies that anticipated such an event. Or, you have a situation where you have conflicting approaches in your bylaws, rules or policies. How do you resolve the situation?

Start with the legislation under which the organization was created and incorporated (as well as related legislation, such as rules governing charities in The Income Tax Act). Does it address the situation? If so, it takes precedence in resolving the situation.

Then look at your bylaws. They are next in order of precedence. Is the solution there?

For the next step, look at documents identified and given authority in the bylaws. This could be a code of ethics, regulations, a meetings rule book, or board policies.

As the final step, look at those sources that are not identified in the bylaws. This could include organizational policies and practices, association publications, common meeting rules, sector practices, etc.

A simple way to look at this is to focus on documents in the order of precedence, and if they are silent on the issue, then go to the next level of precedence. Conflict between documents is resolved by deferring to the document with the higher precedence.

Note: Where and how matters should be addressed in these documents is a different issue, and perhaps we will address it in the future.

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

TIPS, TOOLS & RESOURCES

The Tool Shed is the place to find the right tool for the right job...and the tools are designed to work in associations and other not-for-profit organizations.

The Adobe Acrobat format (pdf) is ideal for sharing documents for the following reasons:

The ability to create Adobe Acrobat files is included with various Adobe programs.

However, we use a product that can be downloaded free on the Internet. Any document can be printed to the pdf writer thus creating a pdf file (compatible with Adobe and can be viewed with Adobe’s free reader). Whenever a pdf document is created using the free product, an advertisement pops up in your browser window. We find that to be a minor inconvenience.

For a discussion on when not to use pdf formats when sharing documents, check out the Better Practice on the topic.

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

TIPS, TOOLS & RESOURCES

The practices described in this area are described as Better Practices for a very good reason. We have a great deal of difficulty with the term best practices used in any other context than to refer to the results of benchmarking exercises involving real and relevant organizations with tangible results. We offer Better Practices related to areas where we feel that change is needed in associations. The Better Practices are intended to provoke thought, and to encourage organizations to think about what they are doing and how they are doing it.

If the format of the document is important, or if the document is very long, then consider converting it to pdf format. This is applicable with forms, brochures, documents with graphical design elements, and large documents….if the on-line viewer is likely to print it!

However, organizations do use pdf format in some circumstances where it is inappropriate (or at least inappropriate to have pdf as the only available format).

It is unwise to provide materials in pdf format only for conference, seminar, education, and similar programs that require registration. Such materials should be presented in a manner and format suitable for quick and easy on-line viewing. You want viewers to be able to quickly access the information that they are seeking. For example, if the viewer wanted to access the speaker bios in the conference marketing materials, it would be considerably faster and easier via an HTML menu to go directly to that information than it would be scrolling through all the pages in a pdf version of the full brochure.

The same applies to newsletters and magazines. These documents should not be provided in pdf format only as it is not suitable for on-line reading. Organizations should present their content in a way that suits the medium, and reading an image of a graphical newsletter or magazine is not user-friendly. As stated above, the pdf version is best if they will be printing it rather than reading it on-line (or provide a print-friendly version).

While providing the organization’s content and knowledge in pdf format may be easier for staff to administer, keep in mind the only a few search engines access pdf files. Also, pdf format is not as universally accessible as an HTML page. Finally, the search tool on your own site may not target pdf files.

When is a Word or similar word-processing format applicable? Rarely. Word-processing formats should only be used when you are providing documentation that will be downloaded and edited by the viewer. Even in those circumstances, the information should be presented in HTML format as well.

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

TIPS, TOOLS & RESOURCES

Technology has a significant role in the work of association staff. The Technology Tips focus on how individuals can manage using technology rather than being managed by technology.

The question that confronts everyone but the most staunch Luddite (one who distrusts or fears the inevitable changes brought about by new technology) is:

Here are some tips to help you answer that question in the context of your organization, your budget, and your circumstances:

A final thought

Before you spend money on an upgrade or new version, consider whether a different software product would be a better choice.

While I was a Eudora user in the early days, I am now an Outlook user. Ditto for Netscape giving way to Explorer. In my view, whether one likes Microsoft or not, there are many advantages to having the same software as most of your members and suppliers.

Check out our latest FAQs survey results to see what accounting and membership database products are most popular with Canadian associations and non-profits.

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

TIPS, TOOLS & RESOURCES

Sometimes association and non-profit staff, volunteers and other stakeholders lose touch with the bigger picture because they are so caught up in what is happening in the trenches. Our intent in offering the Reality Check feature is to get these individuals to step back and re-think their existing views.

In some circumstances, the results may be very worthwhile. However, there are many examples of poor results, wasted time and money, and the feeling that the organization should not have taken that particular course of action.

What causes organizations to deviate from plans and from preferred methods? The culprit is free money -- from governments, foundations or other sources for projects and other initiatives.

Don’t let the availability of such funding cloud your judgment! Take a long hard look at whether the results will be worth all of the costs and headaches before you accept such funding. Look this gift horse in the mouth!

For a reality check, ask yourself the following 10 questions when considering such funding:

1. Does it fit with the mission of our organization? Is it in our strategic plan? Or is it an emerging priority?

2. Do we have the resources to undertake the work? Have we taken into account all the costs of the project or program?

3. Will this require us to drop or delay other initiatives? If so, is it more important than those initiatives?

4. What are the relationship issues – volunteers, partners, funders, government?

5. Will this eliminate us from consideration for other funding in the future that may be more appropriate and relevant?

6. Are we creating something new, or spending a lot of time and money producing something that already exists?

7. Is there an ongoing aspect to the project or program? How will that be resourced?

9. Is the process to be followed acceptable to the association? Is this how you would undertake the work if paying for it yourself? Is the gap between the two significant?

10. Who is calling the shots? Are there strings attached, and have you identified them all?

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

TIPS, TOOLS & RESOURCES

AXI brings you five articles or resources that offer new thought, interesting views, or practical solutions related to association and non-profit issues. Given our intent to provoke thought and discussion, we do not only select articles with which we agree.

Articles and resources for From the Resource Collection are identified and accessed using AXI's Resource Collection.

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

TIPS, TOOLS & RESOURCES

According to the Rules highlights legislative, regulatory and similar issues that affect the operation or governance of associations and other not-for-profit organizations.

Consultations for New Federal Incorporation Process

AXI President Wayne Amundson attended the full-day Industry Canada consultation in Edmonton regarding the proposed changes for federally incorporating non-share capital corporations (i.e. associations, charities and similar organizations).

It appears that most of the attendees to the consultations to date have been from charities. "The Edmonton session was almost exclusively charities", reports Amundson.

He notes, "There are some issues that will be troublesome for membership-based associations, and especially trade associations. If the only input they get is from the charity perspective, then these proposals may find their way into the legislation".

Amundson also noted a troubling trend towards providing access to information on demand by disgruntled members. The requirement currently calls for the provision of financial information, membership information, etc. within a short period of receiving a member's request. While he supports the concept of openness and accountability, the way to provide it in membership organizations is best left in the hands of the members. If they feel that is need, then let them add it into the bylaws.

Amundson noted that many of the consultation sessions have been completed. He noted that the Toronto session is the exception, and he encourages Toronto based membership organizations to review the proposals and plan to attend.

He added in closing, "Some of the provisions, such as the removal of the letters patent approach to incorporation, are positive and long overdue. However, there should be concern with some of the proposals."

For information on upcoming consultation locations and dates, contact Industry Canada or the Canadian Society of Association Executives.

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

FEATURE

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

VIEWPOINT

The Cost of Governance

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

ASSOCIATE COLUMN

Plain Language

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

GUEST COLUMN

Re-branding: One Canadian Association Shares Its Experience

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

GUEST COLUMN

Policy Governance in 2002

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

GUEST COLUMN

Some Simple Guidelines for Merger Discussions

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

AXI NEWS

AXI Launches Association Life™ Cartoon

Effective Chairing and Minute-Taking Standards Workshops in Calgary

Bylaws and Board Policies Session at Percy Page Centre in Edmonton

Privacy Sessions Scheduled for Regina and Saskatoon

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

TIPS, TOOLS & RESOURCES

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

TIPS, TOOLS & RESOURCES

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

TIPS, TOOLS & RESOURCES

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

TIPS, TOOLS & RESOURCES

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

TIPS, TOOLS & RESOURCES

A final thought

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

TIPS, TOOLS & RESOURCES

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

TIPS, TOOLS & RESOURCES

Source: The Canadian Association newsletter - May 2002 issue - published by Association Xpertise Inc. - www.axi.ca/tca

TIPS, TOOLS & RESOURCES

Consultations for New Federal Incorporation Process