Discussion Paper on Participation, Representation and Voting

DISCUSSION PAPER ON PARTICIPATION, REPRESENTATION AND VOTING

From the Constitutional Review Committee, Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Inc.

About Us

As has been communicated over the last few months, the Board of the Blind Foundation has set up a Constitutional Review Committee. We call it the CRC for short. While the CRC includes the Board’s Chairman and a Board representative, we work independently of the Board. Our job is to review the Constitution that, with only a few amendments over the years, has been the legal framework the Blind Foundation has operated under since 2003.

Part of that work involves writing consultation papers like this on a range of issues the Committee has identified as important, thanks in part to the feedback we’ve already received.

If the CRC recommends any changes to the present Constitution that the Board wishes to take to the membership, there will be a binding vote on these changes.

We appreciate you helping us in our work by taking the time to give us feedback on this and other consultation papers we are releasing.

Since we’re discussing issues around the Constitution, the CRC tends to use the Foundation’s legal name, the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind (RNZFB). Operationally, the arm of the organisation that delivers services to clients brands itself as the Blind Foundation. The RNZFB also encompasses other entities to which the Board makes appointments. Such appointments and monitoring are a critical part of the governance function.

About this Paper

In this discussion document, we’re exploring issues around participation, representation and voting. In an organisation with a democratically elected board, these issues go to the very heart of a healthy, vibrant governance system.

This paper provides some background information on matters that the CRC has been thinking about, and also asks some questions. The questions are listed throughout the document in context, and they’re also grouped together at the end to make it easy for you to find the questions and answer them.

The questions are only a guide, designed to make it easier for you to have your say. If there are matters we haven’t covered relating to participation, representation and voting that are important to you, then please let us know.

Similarly, if there are questions in the Paper on which you have no opinion, it isn’t necessary to answer them for your views to be considered.

Participation

Uptake of Membership

The RNZFB Board makes decisions about the strategic direction of the organisation. In other words, the Board creates the big picture within which the Chief Executive and staff work. So the Board’s decisions make a difference to the kind of services you receive. Under a model based on self-determination, it’s important that everyone has ample opportunity to participate, and is encouraged to do so.

At the moment, it’s not necessary to be a member of the Foundation to receive services. Taking up your right to membership means you can vote for directors once a year and participate in meetings and special resolutions, but there are no other benefits or privileges of membership.

When the Constitution came into force in April 2003, members of the Foundation automatically became members of the new Foundation. But everyone joining the Foundation since then has had to opt into membership.

The number of clients who have chosen to be members has dropped significantly over the years, and this trend was exacerbated by a change in the client registration process. Those registering for service with the Foundation used to be given the option to become a member during the registration process, but this option was removed around two years ago.

The CRC is mindful that when people apply for service with the Foundation, they could be under considerable stress. The applicant’s priority at the time of registration is getting the assistance that prompted the registration in the first place. Being able to have a say in who governs the organisation may not seem like a high priority at the time. But later, clients may not get around to becoming members due to indifference or higher priorities, rather than a strong sense of unwillingness.

More recently, the Board has created a Governance Relationship Officer position. One of the functions of that position is to phone new clients roughly six months after initial registration, to explain the benefits of membership and facilitate their becoming a member if they wish to do so. The time elapsed between registration and the telephoned invitation to become a member may vary a little depending on the workload of the Governance Relationship Officer and other factors.

If a client declines membership, the Governance Relationship Officer may make a further follow-up call at a later time if the client agrees.

Out of 1,200 new clients, only 59 took up membership since the option to become a member was removed from the Foundation’s client registration form.

The Board has recently required the registration form to once again include a provision allowing new clients to opt into membership at the time of registration. Even though this form was only modifiedthree months ago at the time of writing, 75 new clients have already opted into membership.

A constitutional amendment would be necessary to give membership automatically to everyone who registered for service. This would mean that after registration, all new clients/members would receive voter information and would be able to vote. If new clients wished not to be members, they could choose to opt out, which would not affect their service delivery in any way.

It is difficult to know whether making membership automatic would increase participation, and there would be a significant financial cost to the Foundation of having a much larger electorate.

Question 1: Do you support:

(A) The status quo, where clients aren’t enrolled automatically, but can choose to become a member at any time? Or

(B) A change that would see all new clients made members automatically, with the option to opt out of membership without penalty at any time?

Question 2: What might be done to make membership of the Foundation more attractive? Would additional benefits or alternative forms of promotion make a difference?

Member Participation

While ensuring that everyone who has an interest in the strategic direction of the RNZFB has the chance to become a member, the number of members who choose to exercise their right to vote is another important issue. The number of people participating in Board elections has declined over the years. The CRC has discussed potential reasons for the drop in voter turn-out. If you’ve lost interest in voting over the years, we would be interested to understand the reasons.

Some possibilities the CRC has identified include:

• Indifference: People may feel that electing the Board of the RNZFB has little impact on their lives and there are more important matters requiring their attention.
• Approval: People may feel that the RNZFB Board is generally doing a good job, so they don’t feel motivated to vote.
• Disenchantment: People may feel that no matter who they vote for, nothing will change even though they’d like it to.
• Overwhelming: When there are many candidates seeking election, it can be difficult and time consuming to learn about them all and make a decision about who to support.
• Remoteness: At present, verbal and written information is available about candidates seeking election, but there are few, if any, opportunities to question candidates or see them debate one another.
• Accountability: Members can attend or listen to RNZFB Board meetings, receive minutes and Board reports, and review the outcomes of the annual business plans. These help interested members to be informed about the decisions taken by the Board as a collective entity, but they may not help members to know whether they approve of the views and performance of an individual director.

Question 3: What factors do you think contribute to the low voter turn-out of members, and how might they be addressed?

Representation

Presently, the Board usually comprises nine directors who serve a three-year term. A third of the Board is elected every year. Eight of the nine directors are elected by full governing members which include guardians of blind children. One director is elected by associate members, those who are not eligible for full membership but have an interest in the Foundation’s work.

The Board can optionally co-opt two additional members, if they need people with certain skills or experience not found within their elected number.

Directors are elected nationally.

We’d like your views on the current model.

Size of the Board

Nine members is a large number for a board by today’s standards. 11 members, if the Board takes up the option to co-opt two members, is exceptionally large. Modern governance thinking is that a board of around six or seven is the optimal number for efficiency and cohesion.

While some governance experts assert that it is easier to build good team dynamics with a smaller number, there would be fewer Board members to allocate to subcommittees, and a smaller Board may not be as diverse as a larger one. Further, the electorate has ensured in recent years that Board members with professional skills in fields like the law and accountancy are elected. Fewer seats may make it harder for the electorate to deliver these well-considered outcomes. That said, such expertise can always be hired, or co-opted.

Question 4: How many people should be on the Board? Of those, how many should be elected, and how many co-opted positions should be available to the Board if they believe a skill deficit exists? Might a smaller Board be less diverse, and if so, is that a cause for concern?

Question 5: Do you believe a three-year term for directors is the correct length? If not, what term duration do you support?

Question 6:Should there be a limit to the number of terms a director can serve? If so, what should that limit be?

One option for reducing the size of the Board would be to eliminate the associate member seat. The number of voters in this category is small, but has increased since the Board has begun to promote associate membership 18 months ago. The Associate Member electorate’s voter turn-out is over 50%.

The Associate Member category was introduced to demonstrate that volunteers and family are critical to the success of the Foundation’s work. Others contend that most people who generously give of their time to the Foundation don’t have a strong interest in the governance process. Some choose to make a valuable contribution through the community committee system, while others are content to assist clients directly.

Question 7: Do you support the retentionof the Associate Member seat on the Board?

Alternatives to the National Model

The national model is simple to administer, and easy to understand. All directors are accountable through the ballot box to every member who chooses to vote. They aren’t exclusively accountable to any special interest, be that regional or sectorial. Members also have a chance to influence the entire composition of the Board and take any perceived skill deficits into account when voting.

But the national model has been criticised for creating a perception of disconnect between the Board and the membership, since directors don’t have a clearly defined constituency to report to.

Rather than a national model, directors might be elected using a sectorial model.

A regional model would see directors elected based on geographic location, a little like electorate members of Parliament. By way of example, a sectorial model might look like this:

• Two people elected by Auckland members;
• One person elected by members of each of the Waikato, Wellington, Canterbury and Otago/Southland memberships
• Optionally two additional co-opted members.

There are a number of variations on this sectorial theme. This example regional model could be modified to include interests the membership considers to be essential perspectives around the Board table, such as seniors, parents or the Deaf blind.

A clearly defined sector to which a director reports might encourage the fostering of better relationships with that community.

It may also improve participation because under a regional model, the number of candidates each voter can choose is likely to be fewer. There have been some years where, under the national model, the number of candidates may have been overwhelming or confusing.

However, a sectorial model might encourage more parochial decision making around the Board table.

It may also mean that the Board misses out on quality candidates because a restriction has been placed on how many people can be elected from a particular geographical location.

The potential benefits for relationship building offered by a sectorial model might be achieved by operational means. Starting with the first MMP Parliament in 1996, most list MPs have been assigned geographical constituencies. The Board might choose to assign certain directors to liaise with geographical or sectorial constituencies and foster relationships with community groups. Word would spread that while members are free to contact any director, there is one taking a specific interest in their community who might be considered the primary interface with the Board.

Question 8:Do you support

(A) the continuation of a national model, where everyone votes for all seats on the board? Or

(B) A sectorial model, where there are electorates representing clearly defined constituencies?

Question 9: If you support the retention of the national model, do you think directors should be assigned liaison roles with certain constituencies?

Question 10: If you support a sectorial model, do you support it being purely regional in nature, or should certain groups have representation as of right on the Board? If the latter, which groups should be represented?

Question 11: What ways of engaging or meeting with clients are necessary to ensure that the client’s “day to day” needs are heard and understood by the board?

Voting Methods

Since 2003, members have been able to vote in Braille, print, and secretly by telephone using an automated interactive voice response system on the Blind Foundation’s Telephone Information Service. In 2011, the Electoral Commission introduced a human-assisted telephone dictation voting system, allowing blind people and others with print disabilities to vote in general elections and referenda from home over the phone. This model has now been adopted by the Foundation’s Board as an additional way to vote.

More RNZFB members are online than ever before, and that trend will only increase. At present, an online voting option is not available.

Question 12: Would you be more likely to vote in RNZFB Board elections if you could vote online?

Tabulating Votes

Presently, directors are elected under a first past the post model. This means that in a typical year, where three candidates are up for election, governing members choose the three people they would like to see on the Board.

It’s a simple process, both for the voter and the returning officer, but there is a case to be made that it does not achieve the most democratic outcome. There have been a number of elections where candidates have been elected to the Board with only a plurality of the votes. That is to say more people voted for other candidates than the candidate who was elected, but the opposing votes were spread across multiple candidates. Given that the majority of voters have not got the outcome they wanted on several occasions, this may be a disincentive to participation. It may also call the Board’s mandate into question.

The single transferrable vote system (STV) now used in many local government elections is an alternative to the current model. Since STV is proportional, it would produce results that better reflect the wishes of the electorate, at the potential cost of simplicity.

Voters would rank candidates in order of preference, so the candidate ranked 1 would be the voter’s most preferred candidate. It would not be necessary for all candidates to be ranked for a vote to be valid. So if there were three positions and voters chose only to rank three candidates, that vote would still count.

Question 13: Currently we have a simple “first past the post” voting system where the person with the highest number of votes wins. Would changing to a single transferable vote system be more democratic and increase participation, or would it be too complicated and ultimately reduce participation?

Conclusion

The issues the CRC is raising with you in this paper go to the very core of what we need to do to ensure that the Foundation is a well-functioning, democratically run organisation.

Please let us know what you think, as we continue our deliberations that may lead to the formal proposal of constitutional amendments. There may also be some changes that can be made without the need for a constitutional amendment that will improve participation and accountability. If so, we’ll include these as recommendations in our report to the Board when our work is complete.