Decision-Making by TNI Committees and Boards Requirements and Guidance Policy Committee Mission Develops general policies and procedures for TNI. Resource for developing policies and SOPs Reviews existing policies and SOPs for consistency and conformity with TNI mission Provides recommendations for endorsement by TNI Board Developers -- Reviewers DEVELOP Policies and SOPs Affecting more than one TNI Program Administrative When directed by TNI Board When requested by a program or committee REVIEW All policies and SOPs Consistency among each other Conformance to TNI Mission Recommend endorsement by TNI Board Committee Profile Administrative Committee Under direction of TNI Board Members are representatives of TNI Programs and committees One member from the TNI Board One at-large member Member -- Representing Alfredo Sotomayor* Jerry Parr JoAnn Boyd RaeAnn Haynes Silky Labie Carol Schrenkel Steve Stubbs Bob Wyeth *Chair TNI Board Ex-Officio LASC Proficiency Testing Consensus Standards Technical Assistance NELAP Advocacy Hierarchy of Normative Documents Articles of Incorporation Bylaws General TNI Policies Program Policies General TNI SOPs General TNI Guidance Program SOPs General TNI Guidance Need to look at all to completely understand process Document Process Draft, finalize, and approve policies and SOPs Refer to other programs when needed for concurrent approval Send to Policy Committee for consistency review Send to TNI Board Organizational impact Final endorsement Post on TNI Website Ownership Charter guides creation of product Drafter owns product Reviewer suggests changes Drafter responds to suggested changes All can review, suggest Only drafter can change product General Policies and SOPs Creating General Policies for TNI Conflicts of Interest Ethical Conduct of TNI Member Use of TNI Logos and Marks Management of Records Format Guidelines for SOPs of TNI Operations of TNI Committees and Program Boards Decision-Making Rules for TNI Committees and Boards Why Tackle DecisionMaking? Global issue Outcome of all deliberations Prelude to committee products Policy Committee felt guidance would be useful We are all concerned about “voting” Integral to ensuring mission The SOP SOP 1 – 102: Decision-Making Rules for TNI Committees and Boards Endorsed: TNI Board: December 12, 2007 Effective: January 31, 2008 Implementation: May 1, 2008 Applicability: All TNI Programs and Committees Requirements Declare type of rule used to make a specific decision Establish clear decision points Establish quorum requirements No fewer than three Committee Members or Directors Record in the minutes all decisions made For motions, record text, originator, and member who seconds Options to Requirements Consider allowing absent members to register a vote Change rule for making a decision following an established rule Document votes cast by each member Record a minority or dissenting opinion Foundation for DecisionMaking Participatory decision-making leads to sustainable agreements Clear decision points mark the moment and allow proceeding with implementation Decision-making by clear rules promotes accountability and ownership All decisions made should follow established rules. Types of Decisions High-stakes Long lasting results Not easily reversible Can be complex or contentious Affect many Require ownership by many Low-stakes Simple, routine High or Low? Where will the committee have dinner? Who will be a committee member? How are minutes approved? When is an SOP revised? How often does the program board meet? How is the committee’s charter approved? Who will be the Chair of TNI Board? Types of Decision-Making Rules Flip a coin Person-in-charge decides without discussion Person-in-charge decides after discussion Majority vote* Enthusiastic support* Unanimous agreement* *Rules that can involve consensus, a participatory process of deliberation to make a decision “Flip a Coin” Arbitrary, random Picking numbers from a hat, lottery Not appropriate for high-stakes decisions Good for quick low-stakes decisions Will the minutes be printed on blue or white paper? Will the Chair buy dinner for committee members? Person-in-Charge Decides Without Discussion Good for low-stakes decisions For high-stakes decisions: Connects authority with accountability Can create blind spots By delegation of a group to a leader In times of crisis Example Chair cancels scheduled meeting Executive Director chooses sweatshirt color Person-in-Charge Decides After Discussion Combines authority with advice Can promote giving false advice Works well using devil’s advocate thinking May seem wasteful for low-stakes decision Example Executive Director chooses meeting locale after considering advice of planning committee Majority Vote Most commonly used rule Group can decide on majority level Simple, 51% Two-thirds Creates winners and losers Works well for quick low-stakes decisions Enthusiastic Support Strives for unanimity, but recognizes it is not always possible Very good for high-stakes decisions Support is registered on a scale Characterizes degree of support more accurately Can lead to alternative decision-making rule Group decides on scale and level of support to use Gradients of Agreement Endorse Agree with reservation Mixed feelings Don’t like, but won’t block Veto Rule in Action Can use colors Can use numbers Green = complete agreement Red = VETO 5 = Complete agreement 1 = VETO Key is to decide before you are considering a proposal Example To elect a Chair, a Board requires: That 8 out 10 members register agreement on first three levels, but a veto does not defeat proposal To remove a member, a committee requires: That 7 out of 10 members register agreement on the first two levels, that all members vote, and veto defeats proposal Unanimous Agreement Most involved Takes time and understanding All have veto power Effort is rewarded with sustainability Example To recognize an accreditation body, a board requires unanimity Reaching Closure Last phase of decision-making Essential and crucial, yet often omitted If you don’t close it, it remains open Reach closure via a meta-decision “Meta-Decision” A decision made by a group or person-incharge that determines whether a decision on a proposal under discussion can or cannot be made. You are deciding whether you can decide Example To approve SOP Policy Committee requires: RULE: Enthusiastic support SUPPORT LEVEL*: All votes in top three levels, no vetoes, all members vote IF NO SUPPORT (IMPASSE): Redraft and reconsider FINAL CONSIDERATION*: If no support again, simple majority will decide *Meta-decision points: Chair decides when to end discussion Roadmap to Your DecisionMaking Tabulate the types of decisions you make Assign a rule to each type of decision Establish how to change an assigned rule Approve the decision-making scheme What to do if there is an impasse By an appropriate rule Consider the meta-decisions Document all decisions made Conformance to TNI Mission Promotes openness Creates transparency Upfront decisions Documents crucial transactions Ensures inclusiveness All accounted, all participate In Other Words Read it Understand it Walk it Implement by May 1, 2008