Governance:

It seems that RAC’s internal structure (and way of doing things) is being called to account. Some have questioned why we, as members, don’t get to elect the officers of RAC, particularly the President. In fact, some have painted RAC as uniquely closed in this area. It is not.

RAC’s governance structure conforms to the standard model used for most corporations, including the American Radio Relay League. A Board of Directors is elected by the shareholders/members, and that Board chooses (elects) the officers. The Board sets the policy and direction of the corporation, and the officers perform their necessary functions to make that happen. The officers are directly accountable to the Board of Directors, and the Directors are accountable to the members or shareholders. Of course in RAC’s case, the Directors are geographically chosen.

However, though RAC’s governance structure is not a subversive creation of an “old boy’s club”, can it better reflect the principles of transparency and accountability to its members? Should the President, for example, be elected by the membership?

There are dangers in that idea. One of the supposed advantages of the Board electing the President, and other officers, is that they can choose people who are willing to follow their leadership or oversight of the thrust of direction in the organization. If the President is elected by the membership, he may not feel the need to follow the Board, as he has his own mandate from the people.

On the other hand, with the present system, the officers may become more concerned with pleasing the Board, and less concerned with pleasing the membership. Mind you, we’ve had enough conflict with this present system between Board and Officers; what would the other bring?

I certainly don’t have the answer on which is best; it is something we all can collectively decide.

More Directors:

In a future RAC, many would like to see more even representation on the Board of Directors than what we have at present. Some higher population provinces do not have the same representation on the Board as their numbers suggest. Therefore, some have indicated that this disparity be addressed.

In government, there is supposed to be proportional representation. Therefore, it is not a foreign concept to us. All should have an equal voice. However, I might ask: Is there any place for distinct provincial recognition? I tend to think not, as radio is a federally-controlled area and we are all affected by its regulation of same, whether we are in BC or PEI. However, what are your thoughts?

Quebec:

It was also indicated that Quebec has 26.32% of the hams in Canada, and only one Director; and that should be increased. I’m afraid that I do not necessarily agree with that. Why?

As of the end of 2006, the RAC penetration percentage was less than 2%; by far the lowest percentage in the whole country. In number of members, Quebec had 254. True, these are dated figures, but I don’t think they have changed a whole lot.

Therefore, why would we increase our representation from that province on the Board until we see far better support for RAC? At 254 or thereabouts, one Director is more than sufficient to represent Quebec, until they see the need to join our ranks. If more members do come from our neighbour province, then we should quickly modify their representation on the Board in harmony with that. I would love to see that happen!

And so, what would you like to see modified in RAC’s governance?

I have discovered that some of us live in the memories of the past which make seeing a vision for the future impossible.

In one sentence you have summarized the single biggest problem facing amateur radio in Canada today.

I am hoping those in a position to do so will take the lead and meet the challenges. So far, the general silence of RAC Board and Executive has been disappointing, perhaps indicative of what’s happening (or not happening) behind closed doors.

Any further dithering just serves to increase the probability of RAC’s death, the funeral for which the current Board and Executive would almost certainly be seen as having the dubious distinction of presiding over.

73
Bob
VE3BDB

“Common sense is the knack of seeing things as they are, and doing things as they ought to be done.” – C.E. Stowe