National Organization for MFRC Boards of Directors
Issue
There appears to be some consensus among various Boards of Directors that there are shared
difficulties and points of interest amongst them that could be addressed by a national body. What
form that national body would take is unknown at this time and would require a working
group/committee to define role and responsibility. In order to pursue the development of any type
of national body, the level of interest must be evaluated formally.
History
For a number of years when Board Members have met, informal discussions frequently include the
topic of a national group that would support Boards in various ways. The expectations of such a
group range from having one voice to communicate with DMFS on shared issues, to the
standardization of Board activity on national aspects of their work. At this point the discussions
have been informal and no substantive action has been undertaken to investigate the national
interest or feasibility of such a group.
At the 1999 Atlantic Regional Conference in Gagetown the Board cell discussed the need for
national contact in the wake of DMFS cancelling the National Conference. During the meeting the
need for national consultation was identified and a national business meeting was proposed to
address the growing number of issues requiring Board attention nationally, unfortunately the
business meeting never took place.
At the 2000 Ontario and Quebec Regional Conference again the topic of national collaboration was
discussed. When posed with questions regarding the formation of a national body Mr. Jameson
Director of Military Family Services responded that in his opinion it was the responsibility of the
Boards themselves to organize if they felt it was necessary. However, DMFS could not initiate nor
would it interfere with the pursuit of a national group.
MFSP Working Group under the direction of ADM HR Mil reviewed the issue and the discussion
prompted the inclusion of a National Association recommendation in the Dr. Clark’s final report.
(Follow-Up Program Evaluation Study recommendation 9-5-3 pg 65. May 2002.) The final
recommendation of the working group was as follows;
“It is recommended that:
A new Working Group be established to investigate the formation of a national association of
MFRCs for the purposes of, inter alia, facilitating and promoting the exchange of knowledge among
members, enhancing professionalism through training and professional development, contributing
to the effectiveness of centres by developing common standards and best practices, and
representing the interests of the membership in discussions, negotiations and dispute resolution
with DND/CF officials at the national level (including the re-negotiation of the MOU).”
Recommendation # 8 Military Family Services Review Action Plan. (MFSP Action Plan 1 Aug. 2005
pg 2.)
In response to the recommendation the following actions were taken and the issue considered
complete.
1
“It is proposed that the new Working Group will include MFRC representatives. The FSRWG
drafted the proposed terms of reference for the new Working Group. Research should be
performed in the not-for-profit sector to determine the best way ahead. Obtaining legal input would
be advised. This national association should not overlap with the roles and responsibilities of the
MFNAB.
Considerations need to be given to the C/MFRCs outside of Canada.
An FSRWG new recommended initiative. Comments
The FSRWG completed its work and handed this initiative over to a volunteer, Mrs. Tracy Douglass
t.douglass @ sympatico.ca who will liaise with the C/MFRCs to continue to work this
recommendation.
Centres are awaiting further direction. MFRC Comox does not support National Association and
feels DMFS and Field Operations Managers.” Action Taken Military Family Services Review Action
Plan 31 Mar 2003. (MFSP Action Plan 1 Aug. 2005 pg 2.)
The outcome of this action is unknown at this time.
Recently the Executive Director of the Esquimalt MFRC circulated a document for discussion of this
issue at the up coming national ED’s meeting which encompasses many of the same principles
discussed in this document. There is no doubt from the number of efforts focused towards a
national organization that the concept is appealing but the reason for the failed attempts at pursuing
the issue need to be addressed.
Discussion
The DMFS sponsored conference for Board Members once again gives the opportunity to initiate a
dialogue to determine the interest level among MFRC Boards in developing some type of national
organization. Of interest would be the possible role a national organization might play within the
current MFRC/DMFS organization, this and similar initiatives are reflective of the current level of
maturity of MFRC’s.
The MFRC/DMFS relationship has improved with the implementation of DMFS Field Operations
Managers but is not yet working to its full potential. Communication problems are still evident
though not as prevalent as they once were and the need for change aptly identified in Dr. Clark’s
Report still exists. However; both DMFS and MFRC’s have grown and matured to the point where
the existence of a national organization is possible and desirable.
2
The benefits of a National Board organization may include:
DMFS
Boards
Mechanism for consultation
Facilitate consistent communication
Mechanism for facilitating change
Ability to identify national issues
Dispute Mechanism
Strengthen the Organization
one voice for shared issues
Consistency among Centres
Sharing information, training,
material & experts
The ability to support and
police themselves
Mentoring
Address retention problems
Mechanism for National Sponsorship
Programs, fundraising and National Trusts
and Bursary Programs
Primarily, a national organization would help create a change in the organization’s culture. There is
a long history of lack of trust on both sides of the MFRC/DMFS relationship and the co-operative
relationship that a national organization could promote would support a sustainable trusting
environment. A great deal of attention has been paid to the professional level of functioning of
many Boards of Directors, a national body which could guide and support Boards when required
could easily address this problem. A national Board organization would create an atmosphere in
which a true partnership between DMFS and the MFRCs could flourish.
To increase the professional functioning of all MFRC Boards of Directors to a minimum standard
should be a priority. Clearly defining roles and responsibilities for Board Members and education
regarding these roles would aid with recruitment and retention. It would also ease a great deal of
pressure from DMFS, our funder, in the policing of Boards who are not functioning properly. Boards
taking responsibilities for themselves would be sending a positive message regarding our
commitment to the community based model.
Informally, there have been a number of areas discussed where a national body may be useful:
1
Common issues being dealt with repeatedly in isolation (known as “re-inventing the
wheel”)
-Common areas of policy
-Standards of conduct
-Recruitment
-Inconsistent dealings with DMFS
-Clear, unified voice on issues vs. DMFS
-Possibility of mentoring
-Network of support always in place
National co-operation may lead to decreased volunteer hours for Board members, which in
some cases are quite high.
2
Board of Directors Credibility.
There appears to be a common belief and perhaps rightly so, that not all Boards are
consistently operating in a professional, ethical and legal way.
-A national group could outline standards, operational procedures and disciplinary
measures to police our selves thus addressing the issue of credibility.
-They could support training and development expectations.
3
- Dr. Clark’s May 24/02 report recommendations 7-5-5(pg 41) gives us notice that
the current model using Boards of Directors may not be the most efficient approach
to programme service delivery and will be reassessed in 4 years.
3
Pooling of Resources, Skills and Influence
-The quality of work being done by Boards vary across the country. The
communities they serve deserve consistency.
-Regions and individuals with in the system could be utilized to draw on skill sets
not available across the country
-Boards would benefit from a network that could facilitate the sharing of consistent
legal, HR, code of ethics and Board policy and structure information.
-Currently no mechanism exists to deal with problems with funders (DMFS and
individual Bases). A national group could play a role in the development of such a
mechanism.
-National corporate fundraising possibilities.
4
In the MFSP Final Report May 24/02 Dr Cark identifies some issues that require
change. A national group representing MFRC Boards could be beneficial but not
limited to these areas:
-As already mentioned, reccommendations7-5-5 (pg 39) efficient programme
service delivery.
-Recommendations 8-1-8 (pg 46) clarification of DMFS and Board roles and
responsibilities.
-Recommendations 8-25 (pg 56) DMFS new regional management model. The
any national body could work well along side the already implemented DMFS Field
Operations Managers frame work.
Next Steps
The way ahead should include the establishment of a working group to assess the role a national
organization should play followed by the development of Terms of Reference required to meet the
group’s objectives. The Trenton MFRC Board of Directors commits to hosting a national meeting of
MFRC Board Chairs and representatives from DMFS in order to determine constructive options for
the way ahead.
For Success
The national organization would need to function with the support of, and in co-operation with
DMFS, but not under DMFS direction, autonomy would be essential. . My proposal is that Boards,
EDs and DMFS all work together to explore the issue respecting the principle that DMFS can not
initiate any such initiative and that the responsibility sits with the Boards. That being said, cooperation in developing a productive efficient national organization is essential to ensuring a
positive relationship between any national organization and DMFS. Anything less would negatively
impact CF families.
Tammy Kleinschmidt
Trenton MFRC Board Chair
Feb 16, 2007
peter.tamara.kleinschmidt@sympatico.ca
4