Why I am supporting calls for an Extraordinary Conference

Last week at the NUS National Executive Committee meeting I voted in favour of the recommendations on NUS Governance. In this blog I will address the reasons way I am supporting the recommendation package and why there is a need for the membership to have the debate about the future of NUS governance sooner rather than later.

Summary of the White Paper on NUS Governance

Full text document of the White Paper on NUS Governance

I’m calling for an NUS Extraordinary Conference Facebook Group

Over the past six months, NUS has been in the process of a governance review; evaluating the performance of the organisation in areas of legal conformance and performance, democratic accessibility and participation and so on. In recent weeks, the final proposals produced by the Governance Steering Group (the steering group commissioned to lead the review) were presented to the NUS National Executive Committee. Following vigorous debates and discussions, the NEC adopted a recommendations package to go out to the membership, in the form of a White Paper, for further consultation.

From Review to Reform

Annual Conference overwhelmingly voted in favour of the review process. This process has been open and transparent and has engaged in wide reaching consultation, allowing the membership to have its full say in the future direction of NUS’ structures. The Green Paper received a diverse mix of feedback, both in terms of the groups who fed back into the process, and in the responses received and whilst some conclusion were absolutely clear others forced us to happily compromise. Following the synthesis process, the recommendations passed by the NEC must be handed over the to the membership to ensure all parties concerned in the process are engaged and can feed into the process going forward.

It is clear there is a real need for NUS to address its legal status, as currently, the organisation performs badly when benchmarked against best practice performances indicators, leaving individuals within the organisation exposed and vulnerable. We must address the continued concern that there are some poor individuals in the organisation that are liable for decisions that they have no input in! It is also clear there needs to be a better correlation between those who are responsible for legal performance and those who are held legally accountable for this. It is important to establish here what is meant by those who hold legal responsibility for the organisation. As in students unions’, NUS employs staff on the basis of their skills, experience and professionalism. As with students unions, there are all kinds of constraints in the time that elected officers have in holding senior members of staff to account. This is not to make an assumption, or in fact an accusation, that staff are not performing as they should be. It is however crucial that elected officers are being supported in ensuring the organisation is getting the best out of those it employs, whilst ensuring staff are supported in working in an organisation that is sustainable, effective and delivering for its members.

This issue, of legal performance and clarity, has been highlighted during the review process, with the Governance Steering Group commissioning a bench marking exercise by the Boards Count initiative (http://www.trans4mgt.com/pages/boards_count.php). This process highlighted the need for the organisation to address its legal controlling body, identifying that at present, we do not have a clearly identifiable legal body that can be held to account for the legal practice of the organisation (it is important to note here that this is distinct from democratic accountability and leadership, although it is clear that this is an issue in itself).

In addressing issues around legal conformance and performance, we can look at the proposals adopted by the NEC around the proposed establishment of a single legal controlling body, or as it is more commonly known, a Board. It is important to make it explicitly here what is the intended purpose of this body- be it the Board or the Legal Controlling Body. This body, as in any well performing third sector organisation, would be clearly tasked with having responsibility for the legal performance of the organisation. Within this remit, the body would need to consist of a membership with the relevant and necessary balance of skills and experience, and would be distinct from the Political functions of the organisation. It is perceived that this area of the reform package will stimulate much contentious debate; a debate that has been had in many HE students unions around the country, and a debate I very much welcome in NUS. Some have already chosen to take a position on this, rejecting this body as “undemocratic”, yet highly political. For many officers I have come into contact with however, the establishment of an NUS Board that would have the right balance of skills and experience that could lead the performance of the organisation forward, in terms of the sustainability, effectiveness and development is seen as a good thing. It goes without saying that this would not be at the compromise of our democratic principles. In order for NUS to have strong, vibrant and accessible democratic processes, it is a prerequisite that the organisation is performing at its most effective. Fundamentally, we need to be operating effectively to ensure we can make the most significant impact for our members.

Looking at any of these issues in isolation will not enable a clear picture of wider context as to the scale of change we both need and are proposing. This is not to say that any package put forward will be perfect. In an organisation like NUS, the diversity that we embrace also acts as a barrier to compromise sometimes. This is not in itself a bad thing. However it is crucial that when we are discussing something as fundamental and significant as the governance review and how this will translate into the reform agenda, it is crucial that the questions are out there and the discussions are had. It is imperative that the sound bites of the radical fringes do not drown out the, both political and pragmatic need to ask big questions and make big decisions. Having pledged in previous blogs my reluctance to write essay length blogs, I will move on to addressing the issue I raised at the start- why I am supporting an Extraordinary Conference to discuss this. For further discussion as to the reasons we need to address access and participation in our democratic structures’, what the impact of the new policy making structures will have on regional involvement, etc, please do not hesitate to contact me for a chat.

Why now?

As the review process approaches the reform process, you may be asking yourself, ‘why now’? “Can’t this wait until Annual Conference in April”? “Is this not going to cost the National Union more money, money that it clearly lacks”?

The simple answer is no, it cannot wait.

Over the next few years, NUS, its members and the wider student movement face a number of major challenges. Our ability to deliver for our members relies heavily on our ability to adapt to the environment in which we operate. Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves, if we face the challenges of reform now, will this put us in a better position for the 2009 Higher Education Funding Review? Will the changes enable us to support students unions’, within FE and HE, to develop their ability to deliver for their members? Again, put in these terms the simple answer is yes. We cannot afford to procrastinate on this one. There is simply too much at stake and after all, you can’t say the review is rushed when the majority of the movement has been waiting over 20 years for reform?

The Blogs on this site represent the individual views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or practices of the National Union of Students.

All links in blogs will open in a new browser window.

The permanent URL for this specific blog entry is: http://www.officeronline.co.uk/blogs/adammcnicholas/274848.aspx