Proposals for improving dialogue and influence within Friends of the Earth
Introduction
At this year's Basecamp, a motion was passed to “set up a working group consisting of Board members, group members and staff to review the current motions process and produce a proposal for improved dialogue between the Board and Local Groups that promotes more active debate, encourages greater participation and is more streamlined”.
The working group has come up with a set of proposals that we'd like to get feedback on from as many people as possible. This document is a summary of the proposals. If you have time, we recommend that you read the full consultation, which is available at www.foe.co.uk/news/further-information-consultation-motions-dialogue. This contains more information about the proposals, the reasons behind the consultation and the approach taken by the working group.
Either way, we urge you very strongly to get involved in this consultation.
How to take part in this consultation
We are asking all local group members, staff and board members to take part in this consultation. Group members and staff should take part as individuals rather than representing their group or team. However, you may wish to discuss some or all of the issues with your colleagues.
Please send your responses to the questions below via one of the two versions of the online survey detailed below or if you prefer, by working through this document and emailing your answers to the questions to by December 6th.
There are two versions of the online survey available.
· The full version: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/motions_dialogue_full
· And the shorter version: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/motions_dialogue_short
All of the information about the consultation, plus links to the online surveys and further reading, is available at www.foe.co.uk/news/improving_dialogue_and_influence_41165
A. Basic ways of working
These proposals address some basic ways that we think organisational cultures and approaches could be improved to achieve greater dialogue. For your information, the following proposals have already been agreed and are under way:
ñ All staff members, no matter what team they are in, to visit local groups at least once a year
ñ Regularly seek local group input on the organisation’s overall strategy and direction
ñ Develop improved ways to use digital means for quality in-depth grassroots campaigning, conversation and collaboration (including a review of Campaign Hubs)
We'd like your feedback on the following new proposals:
A1: Work towards a shared understanding of local groups’ role in Friends of the Earth
Inform groups of the value of their engagement with the wider Friends of the Earth movement and the various ways they can engage; and inform staff and board members of the value of engaging meaningfully with groups and of how local campaigning supports national campaigning.
A2: Embed good communication at all levels
Set expectations for what good communication between staff, the board and local groups looks like, and provide guidance:
ñ for groups, on who to speak to about what, when information is sent out, where to find it, how quickly to expect a response, and the limits of staff availability.
ñ for staff, on how to deal with local group communication, how to contact groups, what sorts of things to ask/share, how quickly to expect a response.
ñ for board, on how to engage with groups, with the expectation for every board member to have contact with groups once a year, and twice a year for locally-elected board members.
Also, establish it as good practice that groups are consulted (wherever possible) on changes that are directly related to resources for and support of local groups.
A3: Strengthen informal dialogue
Provide more opportunities for informal dialogue between groups, staff and board members, including:
ñ at least one regional gathering per year in every region;
ñ each programme to put on at least one specialist training event per year;
ñ greater use of teleconferences and web tools;
ñ at least one tour of local group visits and events for a senior staff member each year;
ñ support for the development of personal relationships between groups and relevant staff;
ñ internal processes to capture intelligence from this dialogue to reach relevant staff teams.
Questions
ñ Do you
◦ Broadly support with this proposal
◦ Broadly support but with caveats (please explain)
◦ Don’t support
◦ Don’t know
ñ Do these ways of working sound useful, reasonable and appropriate?
ñ What other measures could help shared understanding, informal dialogue and better communication between groups and staff or board?
ñ Do you have concerns about any of these, or improvements you would make?
B) Influencing live or planned campaigns and projects
These are our proposals for mechanisms that would be used as a matter of course to inform live or planned campaigns and projects.
B1: Use advisory groups for campaigns/programmes
Require every programme and every campaign that we run for 6 months or more to consider setting up an advisory group of local group members and other stakeholders to advise on strategy, tactics and materials.
B2: Use online ‘straw polls’ for fast input of ideas and feedback
Use online polls as a quick and easy way for staff to gather feedback from groups, board and other staff members on ideas for campaigns and activism tactics, approaches and projects.
B3: Improve intelligence-sharing between local groups & staff
Develop a better and more consistent way of sharing on-the-ground intelligence (such as major site battles, feedback from MPs, precedent-setting planning decisions, etc.) between local groups, staff and the board to help staff identify key trends and to support local group activity.
B4: Continue to deliver a “Next Major Campaign” process
The “Next Major Campaign” process worked well in 2013 and we propose that something of this nature should be repeated for the selection of all future major campaigns. (If you’re not familiar with this, please see page 7 of the full consultation paper, which is available via www.foe.co.uk/news/further-information-consultation-motions-dialogue.
B5: A Future Campaigns Circle
Hold a major plenary session at Basecamp involving board, staff and group members – perhaps alternating with the Next Major Campaign session - to discuss which issues Friends of the Earth should prioritise running from two to five years from the date of the event.
B6: Co-creation of Basecamp and regional gathering agendas
Co-create the agenda for Basecamp and regional gatherings, with local groups suggesting agenda items and developing and delivering content.
B7: Provide a mechanism for groups to bid for staff time to help local campaigns
Allow groups to “bid” for time from specific staff to offer limited support to locally-led campaigns outside of Friends of the Earth's national campaigns: for example, advice on campaigns for renewable energy or against incinerators and new roads, and local planning.
Questions
ñ Do you
◦ Broadly support with this proposal
◦ Broadly support but with caveats (please explain)
◦ Don’t support
◦ Don’t know
ñ Do these proposals sound useful, reasonable and appropriate?
ñ What other measures could help inform live or planned campaigns or projects?
ñ Do you have concerns about any of these, or improvements you would make?
C. Raising and discussing issues relevant to Friends of the Earth
C1: Introduce a mechanism by which any group can propose any issue for organisation-wide discussion
Provide a less formal mechanism than motions to raise and discuss any issue people feel would benefit from debate across the organisation. A group/member raises the issue (e.g. via Campaign Hubs) and other groups/members then express interest. Where there is significant interest, space can be made available at an event to discuss the issue with other interested local group members, staff and board members. As part of the discussion, the participants decide where to take it next: communicating the results to relevant stakeholders might be enough in itself; or it might start a local group-led project; or if appropriate it might be taken forward as a resolution (see D2 below).
Questions
ñ Do you
◦ Broadly support with this proposal
◦ Broadly support but with caveats (please explain)
◦ Don’t support
◦ Don’t know
ñ Would this be useful?
ñ What are its strengths and weaknesses?
ñ What would be a reasonable expectation of staff involvement in discussion?
D. Raising strategy and governance issues with the Board
D1: Provide regular Board Q&A sessions
Improve Board Q&A sessions at Basecamp by good facilitation and ensuring group members are made aware of how governance works and how they are entrusted to engage with Friends of the Earth’s governance; provide Board Q&A sessions outside Basecamp, including via teleconferences and regional gatherings.
Questions
ñ Do you
◦ Broadly support with this proposal
◦ Broadly support but with caveats (please explain)
◦ Don’t support
◦ Don’t know
ñ Do you think these are useful ways of enabling informal discussion?
ñ Any suggestions to make it work well? Any problems?
D2: A Resolutions process for groups to raise issues more formally with the board
Provide groups with a way of raising strategy and governance issues with the Board, but in a more collaborative way than motions. Any group could initiate the process at any point, not dependent on an annual event cycle. In the first instance, the group would be expected to discuss the issue with other local groups, staff and board members to try and find a solution (perhaps using the process in proposal C1). Failing that, if the group was able get support from above a threshold number of groups, the resolution could be formally submitted. If the resolution is accepted, the proposers and the board would meet and attempt to find a solution by consensus. Otherwise, the resolution can be taken to a vote of all groups. See flowchart of the resolution process in the appendix below. A simpler version could be used for board-led resolutions. This would still include dialogue with groups before going to vote.
Questions
ñ Do you
◦ Broadly support with this proposal
◦ Broadly support but with caveats (please explain)
◦ Don’t support
◦ Don’t know
ñ What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of this approach? Would it work?
ñ The threshold number of groups needed to progress an issue would need to be high enough to reflect a strong mandate from the network, but not unreasonably time-consuming nor exclusive to less well-connected groups. What do you think the right threshold is?
ñ Is six months a sensible time limit for groups to find enough groups to support their resolution? (see flowchart)
ñ Does it need an amendments stage? (see flowchart)
ñ Does it need an appeal stage? (see flowchart)
ñ Is it clear what could go through this process and what wouldn’t? How could it be clear?
ñ Is this process viable from the Board’s perspective in terms of the time it would take?
ñ Do you have any other comments on this proposal?
Alternative option: Maintain/adapt the existing motions process
As two of the proposals (C1 and D2) would directly replace the motions process, we wanted to make sure that you were consulted on whether you’d prefer to keep things as they are, or if you would prefer to keep but amend the motions process. Adaptations could include:
ñ Informal discussion of motions topics during the year to see if issues can be resolved this way, and to discuss how proposals in motions relate to existing priorities.
ñ Motions have to be seconded by more groups, for example five, ten.
ñ Motions submissions have to contain the proposer’s view on why this is a higher priority than an alternative, or what resources the motion would take.
ñ Motions require a 2/3rds majority to pass.
ñ Proxy voting for motions – not having to be present at Conference/Basecamp.
Questions
ñ Would you prefer to maintain the existing motions process as it stands? If so, please put forward your thoughts on why the Motions process is better than these proposals.
ñ Would you prefer to adapt the existing motions process? If so, please detail what changes you’d like to see and why you think the altered motions process would be better than the combined alternatives C1 and D2.
Overall questions on proposals and alternatives
ñ Do you think these proposals, or whatever combination of them you have suggested in your response, satisfy your need for positive dialogue within Friends of the Earth?
ñ If not, what would you add or remove?
ñ Are there any other points you would like to make, or any alternative suggestions?
What is the right place for governance and strategy discussion?
Basecamp is currently the only Friends of the Earth event at which local groups, staff and board members come together, and it incorporates the governance and strategy elements – including Board elections and motions - that are required by our Standing Orders. However, not all local groups attend Basecamp. With a view to getting wider engagement in governance, we could:
ñ Continue using Basecamp as the place for board elections and governance discussions (such as resolutions or motions), and encourage more groups to attend.
ñ Separate out these governance and strategy elements into a new annual event, a little like an AGM meeting for local group members.
At either event, effort could be made to enable engagement remotely via phone or online.
Questions
ñ Would you prefer the “conference” function to remain at Basecamp, or would you rather this happened at a separate event? Why? If it was separated out, would you come to both events, and if not, which one would you prioritise?
ñ Would you like to engage in this conference/governance event via telephone or online, and if this were possible, does that affect your preference for it being at Basecamp or separately?
ñ Would you prefer to wait and see how the results of this review ‘bed in’ before revisiting this?
Next steps, embedding changes and accountability
After consultation closes on [enter date] we will process all feedback, revise the proposals accordingly and submit them to the Board. If the Board agree our final proposals, they will sign them off for trialling before and at Basecamp in June 2014. Groups will also get a chance to vote on whether to adopt these proposals at Basecamp 2014.