Part Two
6.4 Members
6.3.2 Upwards Accountability
Four respondents in management positions and one CE perceived themselves accountable to the board. This perceived relationship can be seen as an extension of the formal hierarchical chain of command.
As an employee, I am accountable to my board (my local board). They are my employers and they have contracted me to provide certain services and I report back on those services to them on a monthly basis and I report on behalf of the staff and the staff on the other hand are accountable to me as their employer so they give me monthly reports and between that we open dialogue, debriefing meetings and those sort of things. So I am a bit old fashioned but I still see the chain of command (2.7).
The relationship was based on formal reporting to the board and reflects the perceived power of the board.
We have a system of variance reporting so every month we provide full profit and loss statements and balance sheets to the board and all the KPI information (1:4).
• Member serving organisations (Case 3)20. The organisation is established and operates to serve its members. Members join in order to be able to access the services for their personal use (Gordon and Babchuk, 1959);
• Public good organisations (Case 1 and 4). The organisation is established and operates to serve some positive purpose generally attempting to contribute to a better society. Members join to contribute to the cause promoted by the organisation (Gordon and Babchuk, 1959); and
• The head office of a federated organisation structure (Case 2). The head office serves the autonomous federates. The federates may be seen as members because they elect the head office board and vote at the AGM.
Four respondents considered their accountability to members as their most important accountability relationship. Seven, in total, mentioned the importance of accounting to members. Five out of eight respondents from Case 2 acknowledged the importance of their accountability to members. These respondents were acknowledging the role their national organisation plays in providing services to federated local organisations. These local organisations were conceptualised as members.
For Cases 1 and 4, historic links to churches and the residual constitutional powers of the church hierarchy meant that these church-based members were considered important. Church-based members were particularly important to Case 4 respondents: five out of eight respondents mentioned their importance.
20 For respondents from Case 3, members are also clients. The organisation is run based on membership subscriptions and payments by members for fees. None of the respondents conceptualised their members as members, but instead as those that receive the organisation’s services. Given this perception, their responses were coded as ‘client’ not ‘member’ and are captured in the previous chapter.
We share the same name but we are a quite separate legal entity and we have a relationship with them through the fact that there is five [church areas] and they make up our [service] area and they, in conjunction with the board, appoint five board members; one from each of the five [church areas] so there is a direct relationship there (4.1).
It was board members who generally perceived members as important. Four respondents acknowledged that they were elected by members and were accountable because they were selected to represent the members’ interests.
I believe the stakeholders are the [members] all round the country. We are elected at an annual general meeting every year by them so we have a responsibility to them (2.5).
The key stakeholders in my view are the [members] that appointed the board members to look after their interests … Those are the people that pay a membership sub and are entitled to a newsletter and entitled to come to the general meeting if they wish to (4.2).
Members, particularly church-based ones, were also a recognised source of funds:
fundraising being an important concern of the board.
Most of our strong generous donors are linked up with the parishes (1.7).
We have members for donations of course (4.1).
There was also an acknowledgement of the potential power of the membership, and that if this relationship was not well managed problems could be created for the board.
Other than write out their cheques ever year, [members] act as the conscience [of the organisation] and scream [obscenities when they are not satisfied with the organisation’s performance] (4.7).
While board members perceived members as important stakeholders, management and CEs actively denied that there was any measure of accountability to members, especially those with church-based mandates. They saw themselves working, as
professionals, for an autonomous organisation and did not want ‘meddling’ in their operations.
One of the fights over the years has been the tendency [of the church] to want to hijack the resources of the organisation because they have other aspirations.
They want to provide the latest trendy social services because it happens to look good when they front a TV camera. I am duly cynical (4:7).
I said to [the head of the church] on his visit here a few months ago, I said when the time comes for the church to come in here and tell us how to do our business we will start writing sermons (4:5).
I don’t personally think that the church is that important stakeholder for a whole host of reasons. I think the church has its job, I think as history we have separated. We use the same name, we have the same brand, we have the same ideals and because the Christian ideals are so clear we don’t need to consult because the grounding is so solid (4.9).
But however adamantly some management and CEs guard their independence from church-based members, the usefulness of this relationship is acknowledged at a symbolic level. Members and a link with a church are sources of funds, and are seen to enhance the ‘brand’ of the organisation.
She [one of the staff members] is doing some marketing papers and so as part of her paper did [the organisation]. She did some surveys in the community about what they thought of us or didn’t think of us….Generally people think if you are linked to a church you are probably going to be nicer, whether that is true or not, that is the perception of the community (1:5).
Members and churches are also acknowledged as having a role in being a check on the organisation and so ensuring the organisation is on the right course.
Members are relatively powerless as far as the organisation is concerned because of the nature of its constitution but they form one crucial function, they act as the potential conscience of the organisation (4:7).
The relationship with members is an example of a ‘hard’ accountability relationship.
Members have the formal ability to demand an account of and sanction non- performing board members. Board members acknowledged members as important stakeholders. Staff and CEs did not perceive them to be as important. To staff and CEs, members were a useful source of funds and contributed to their organisations’
brands.