6.1
September 2006 Oxfam Canada Board Meeting
For Discussion
Discussion paper on Membership
Background
In its discussions of Oxfam Canada’s Strategic Plan for the next five years, the Board has identified membership as an important area for attention. Unlike many Oxfams, Oxfam Canada identifies members as the foundation of our structures and governance process. The translation of this principle into practice has been difficult, however, hampered by a lack of commitment and/or resources. As a result, the expectations of some members are not being met and the potential value of members’ participation is not being realized.
This paper provides background information to help frame a discussion of membership and its role within Oxfam Canada. It is does not set out a comprehensive strategy for deepening members’ engagement, though it does offer suggestions for elements of such a strategy. It does not set out a volunteer engagement strategy though it situates the discussion of members in this broader context. (See 9.3 for a proposal on volunteer engagement strategy)
An earlier version of this paper was discussed by the Membership and Volunteer Committee of the Board in August. Based on that discussion and follow-up with the Committee chair, alternate models of membership have been framed. (See 6.1.1) and revisions have been incorporated in this paper.
The Board has set aside time as part of its Strategic Planning Workshop for a discussion on membership. Recommendations arising from that session could then be considered by the Board at its September regular meeting and would then be open for discussion at Regional Assemblies, returning to the Board for decisions and incorporation into the Strategic Plan for 2007/2011 at the February 2007 Board meeting.
Current policy
Oxfam Canada’s Board of Directors adopted a Member Policy in March 2002. (See Annex 1) The policy calls on Canadians who support Oxfam’s aims to become members, because “Oxfam Canada can contribute more effectively to ending global poverty and creating more equitable global systems with the commitment of time, energy, knowledge, money and democratic voice of Canadians as members.”
The policy affirms Oxfam’s interest in creating a democratic organization that fosters opportunities for Canadians to learn about and demonstrate that they are global and Canadian citizens, in order to increase Oxfam’s reach and effectiveness. It calls for the creation of an inclusive organization that offers a variety of equally valued ways to contribute to Oxfam’s goals.
In setting out the rights and responsibilities of members, the policy identifies these responsibilities related to the organization’s governance:
- approval of bylaws
- approval of audited financial statements
- appointment of auditors
- nominating, contesting and voting for elected positions
- advising the Board on key policy issues and directions.
The policy sets out a series of expectations of members that relate to commitment and compliance. As well, it sets out expectations that members may have of Oxfam Canada, including:
- access to information about its work and how they can best support it
- access to information on governance matters
- appreciation for members’ diverse views and a commitment to solicit members’ ideas and experience to make good decisions
- encouragement of feedback and input from its members and a commitment to building relationships with its members
- commitment to developing an effective member/volunteer program that involves members in its work and decision-making.
The Member Policy strongly encourages members to become volunteers and volunteers to become members, with both groups actively participating in and contributing to the different elements of the organization’s work.
Moving from policy to practice
Among members of the Board, different views have been expressed concerning membership. Some Board members are of the view that the policy and goals are clear; that what is lacking is a coherent plan – and the active support of staff – to implement the vision that was adopted by the National Assembly held in Vancouver in 2001. Others have argued that more discussion is required within the Board – and with the membership and staff – to clarify the contribution membership makes – or could make – to achieving Oxfam’s mission and weigh the volume and type of resources that would be invested in strengthening membership against the potential impact of investing those resources in other ways.
There are a number of factors that contribute to these different perceptions. One is that within Oxfam Canada different regions have different experiences with members and volunteers. In British Columbia and in Ontario, in particular, there are a larger number of members who have been involved more consistently over a longer period of time who have higher expectations about consultation and participation. For that reason, Board members from those regions may hear more directly from active members seeking more meaningful engagement in decision-making.
Another may be that among Board members themselves, there are different views on the desirability and practicability of deeper membership engagement in Oxfam Canada’s governance. And there are different views on whether the concept of members connotes a special commitment and role, given special tasks and provided access to special tools. Or whether membership should be seen as one element of a broader experience of engagement, encouraging participation as part of an electorate while valuing other expressions of citizenship. (See 6.1.1 for an example of different ways of characterizing this distinction)
Among staff, similarly, there is a range of views. Most would acknowledge that an open, active membership is consistent with Oxfam Canada’s mission and approach to development, and welcome that coherence at an ideological level. But many get nervous when the theory is put into practice, questioning whether the current model of membership participation brings much value or increases Oxfam’s impact. The value and contribution of volunteers is clear, but of members as members, less so.
For some, the discomfort arises because they are concerned that some members lack the information or analysis required to make critical decisions. Or they are concerned there is an inherent bias among members to privilege resources for work in Canada because it is the work with which they are most familiar or it is work with which they can be directly involved. Some are concerned that the most vocal members are not necessarily representative of the membership. Or they fear that an increased role for members will involve them in a level of oversight which is not appropriate.
Others may be concerned the voice of members will trump that of staff who are hired because of their expertise and have responsibility to recommend policy and develop and deliver programs.
This concern is magnified for some because there is no formal means for voices from the global South (the poor, counterparts, allies) or for other stakeholders (donors, funders, the public, OI and its affiliates) to be fed into Oxfam Canada’s decision-making other than through staff. As a result, it is difficult at times to distinguish when staff are representing their own view or that of other stakeholders, and when it is the latter, whether they are fairly representing those views. In this regard, it should be noted that staff are not monolithic. Some staff may not share the views of management (hence the staff representation on the Board), while others are concerned that because regionally-based staff have more opportunity to directly engage, inform and influence members and Board members than do staff at the National Office or overseas, members’ priorities may not fairly balance organization-wide interests.
Given this background, the Board looks to the Strategic Plan to reaffirm the value of membership and put forward a strategy to provide members with the support required so they can responsibly exercise their role.
For Oxfam Canada, a strong, active membership creates:
- Greater credibility and legitimacy, especially with government and with allies,
reinforcing our status as an autonomous expression of Canadian civil society
- Greater diversity, with increased potential to reach out to new constituencies
- Greater engagement, with increased potential to broaden our base of support
among the Canadian public.
For members, the value of membership is:
- Greater sense of identification, with the organization and its mission
- Greater access for participation, to information, resources and activities
- Greater influence over policies/programs, through input to decision making
and elections.
Who are we talking about?
An obstacle in addressing questions related to membership is the lack of information on members, their participation and their expectations. As a result, discussions are most often based on impressions and perceptions rather than data.
As of June 2006, Oxfam Canada had 2,700 members, representing a modest increase over the past several years[1]. While small compared with many membership-based organizations, this number is significantly greater than other Oxfams, which often have a nominal membership numbering fewer than 30 who are invited to attend Annual General Meetings and elect a Board, drawn from their numbers. The notable exception is Oxfam Australia with a membership of 2000.
The distribution of members across regions is as follows:
Newfoundland and Labrador191 7%
Maritimes195 8%
Ontario1150 44%
Quebec66 3%
Prairies373 14%
BC/Yukon653 25%
Half of our membersare also donors. Forty-seven per cent have made a donation since January 2005; one-third (31 per cent) give monthly through SharePlan. We also know that more than two-thirds (70 per cent) are on our email lists for activists and 15 per cent are youth (under 30). While we have no reliable data on how many of our members are also volunteers, it would appear that as many as one-quarter are “active” volunteers, with half that number active on local or campus committees. The remainder is more passive (supporters without an expectation of engagement beyond their governance role) or intermittently active, engaged from time to time as called up.
To inform our understanding of members’ experience and expectations, questions for members were included in a web-based survey of volunteers conducted in August and September 2006. A review of preliminary results shows that 69 per cent of those who responded were members, that 75 per cent thought registered volunteers and regular donors should be automatically considered members, and that 64 per cent believed it inappropriate to charge a membership fee or require a volunteer contribution.
Distinguishing between members and volunteers
Because so many of our members are volunteers and so many of our volunteers are members, discussions about members and volunteers sometimes blur the distinctions between these two categories.
For some this is welcome, reflected in the “we are all members” model (See 6.1.1). Under this approach, membership is seen as a broad pool of active supporters who may express their engagement as campaigners, regular donors, office volunteers, governance volunteers or in many other ways, without putting the onus on the formal roles and responsibilities for members as set out in the Bylaws and Rules and Procedures. This model minimizes distinctions between members and volunteers so as to avoid any perception of elites or exclusion; that volunteers are second-class citizens.
Others have held the view that implicit in membership is a higher level of engagement and ongoing commitment to governance and policy leadership. Reflected in the “membership has its privileges” model (See 6.1.1), emphasis is placed on the decision making and accountability components of members’ role. While recognizing that most members are also active in other ways with Oxfam, this approach emphasizes the special roles and responsibilities of members and their expectation of direct engagement in governance.
If you look at the various opportunities for engagement in the governance of Oxfam Canada, you find that volunteers can play a role indifferent ways but the asterisked (*) items in the following list are opportunities that apply only to members.
Receive direct notice of Regional Assemblies
Attend Regional Assemblies
Move motions at Regional Assemblies*
Vote at Regional Assemblies*
Nominate candidates for Regional Steering Committees*
Stand for Regional Steering Committees*
Vote for Regional Steering Committees*
Participate on Regional Steering Committees*
Nominate candidates for Board of Directors*
Stand for Board of Directors*
Vote for Board of Directors*
Participate on Board of Directors (if elected)*
Receive direct notice of Annual General Meeting*
Participate in Annual General Meeting
Move motions at Annual General Meeting *
Vote in Annual General Meeting *
Receive direct notice of National Assembly*
Participate in National Assembly
Move motions at National Assembly (if selected as a delegate)*
Vote at National Assembly (if selected as a delegate)*
Beyond these more formal examples of engagement in governance lies a broader range of opportunities that relate to questions of policy and program. For example, what role should members play in providing input or making decisions with respect to Annual Plans or Strategic Plans, at the national or regional level? What role should members play in proposing, reviewing or approving policy, campaigns or budget – including staffing – decisions? And to the extent they have a role, in what ways is it different from volunteers or others who are not members?
Models of membership
When we talk about membership models, different people have different expectations and points of reference. An Oxfam member may also be a member of a political party, a faith community, a union or professional organization or a bowling league, each with a different set of expectations that flow from “membership”.
For many, membership at the ‘Y’ means little more than access to the gym and pool, though there are clearly some who become active in its broader social agenda.
In political parties, members are regularly canvassed to donate (and increase their donations) and to participate actively at election time. In most parties, they not only get to vote for leadership, they get to vote on policy, with their decisions binding on the party (though not necessarily the caucus or the government).To support this participation in policy dialogue, there is most often a battery of opportunities to learn more about the issues and to hear and participate in debate.
In churches, there is generally less room for discussion.Members are more often deemed to adhere to a given dogma, with debate discouraged on all but stewardship issues(how to fund the roof repairs). The focus is on communicating tenets rather than engagement in decision making.
Members of unions and professional associations find themselves somewhere between these two models. There are certain “givens” that are generally seen as fundamental to the nature and mission of the organization but more scope for participation in decision making at the policy as well as the implementation level.
In each of these examples, most of the engagement falls to a small portion of the membership at all but special times – elections, schisms, strikes.
When the Board looked at membership and volunteers as part of the September 2005 strategic planning workshop, the model that best captured the sense of the range and relationships among supporters was one of concentric circles with members at the centre and others – volunteers, donors, supporters – rippling out from the core. The underlying assumption was that membership and volunteer strategies should promote people’s increasing participation, engaging them at the periphery and moving them progressively toward membership.
But being at the core does not in itself imply a high level of activism. Oxfam Canada has many more members than volunteers. And many members, like members of political parties, churches, unions and sports clubs, are presumably content to let the elected leadership and selected leadership (staff) carry the bulk of the policy burden. They may welcome opportunities to provide input and would resent barriers to play a greater role as an activist but they are satisfied with their current level of engagement.
The question arises, therefore, is there a membership ‘problem’ and if so, what is the problem and how many members experience it as a problem?
Stumbling blocks
At the Board retreat, it was acknowledged that to dramatically increase the number of members would require an investment of resources that may not be warranted given current constraints. But a number of Board members expressed the view that more could be done to enrich the membership experience – and get more value from members – without significantly increasing resources.
Some Board members would frame the discussion at a higher strategic level, asking whether a given level of resources invested in strengthening membership engagement could make a bigger contribution to achieving Oxfam’s mission if it were invested in something else – TV ads, transfers to partners, strengthening lobby capacity.
The constraint on resources is real. To engage members in substantive discussions about what we do and how we do it requires time and energy. To invite members to participate in dialogue entails an obligation to respond to their input and engage in debate. For that reason, decisions to consult with members can’t be taken lightly. Consideration needs to be given to how much time would be required to support a substantive consultation process, the likely added value and what other work will not be done in order to free up this time.