8
Women: Still a Challenge for Rotary
/ February 62013
A crowd-sourced report created by 14 Rotarians as a result of a discussion at LinkedIn on the issue of the need for a woman as president of Rotary International. An analysis of the barriers within legislation, practices and the culture of Rotary is explored and recommendations are made in each area to increase the likelihood of a woman as president.
Women: Still a Challenge for Rotary
Brief background
In May 2012, Rotary International posted on its website a brief chronology and status report on women in Rotary. This prompted an editorial on a District blog and subsequent discussion on Rotary International's discussion group at LinkedIn. For five months, the issue was the number one topic under discussion. As this report is written, there are over 1800 posts and the discussion is still alive.
This report was developed by a group of fourteen volunteers who took part in the discussion. We have attempted to summarize what was learned in the process and have come together to make recommendations to address the changes we believe Rotary must make, if it is to achieve a level of gender equity consistent with the distribution of women as leaders in business and the professions throughout the world.
Issues revealed through LinkedIn discussion
Part One
Barriers exist to a woman becoming RI President in both the bylaws and particularly the undefined practices of Rotary. They make it nearly impossible for a woman to become president before 2020. These same barriers apply to women but also to men of a young age or to those who joined Rotary late in life. Briefly they are:
From Legislation-
a) The requirement that a Club President has completed their year as president before being nominated as a District Governor Nominee Designate;
b) The requirement that a member must have been a Rotarian for 7 (seven) years before being eligible to be a District Governor;
c) The requirement that a District Governor wait three years before becoming eligible to be nominated and elected to the RI Board of Directors;
d) The requirement that the nominees to the Nomination Committee for RI be former members of the RI Board of Directors; and
e) The existence of the ambiguous term “best” under the criteria for choosing the President.
From Practice-
a) The practice that nominees to the position of District Governor spend three years as an Assistant Governor;
b) The practice that Past District Governors spend a minimum of three years, and often many more than three years, serving as a Zone Coordinator before being considered for nomination to the RI Board of Directors;
c) The practice that nominees to the position of RI President-Elect spend on average ten years serving on RI Presidential Committees after serving their tenure as a Director; and
d) The continued existence of Club level cultural barriers such as “old boys network”, sexist language, a choice of venues and activities which perpetuate a male culture, non-acceptance or unwillingness to address issues facing women, the timing and conducting of meetings such that they are family unfriendly and a general unwillingness or inability of members to challenge the status quo.
The consequence of the above legislative, non-legislative and cultural practice appears to be a closed system of over-lapping elites where “too few possess too much power and influence”. The situation perpetuates acceptance of the status quo and results in a system of governance which is and has been blind to the changes in equity provisions taking place within society, and in particular within business and the professions from which Rotary most covets members.
Taken together, the effect of the above factors has been to increase the average age of current presidents into their seventh decade after an average of 35 years of service. This contrasts to Rotary’s early years when presidents were in their mid-forties. It also contrasts with major world Presidents and Prime Ministers many of whom have assumed their positions before they are fifty.
More important than age, however, is the missed opportunity Rotary has had to show the world that women have the capabilities to lead an International organization. Since 1970, women have become leaders of such nations as Germany, the UK, Canada, Australia, India, Brazil and the Philippines.
Victoria DeGrazia, describes in Irresistible Empire (2006) how, during the early Twentieth Century, Rotary as an American invention spread its ideals of service to the countries of Europe and later around the Globe. Today, when it comes to women as leaders, many of those countries are still demonstrating to Rotary the leadership of which women are capable.
Finally, the use of the word “best” in “10.010 Best Qualified Rotarian… in RI’s elective offices” is ambiguous and leaves too much room for subjective determination of selection criteria, which can be abused by those who wish to hide their bias against gender equity. Geopolitical factors have in the past, and continue to play a role in the nomination of a President. Gender and age are equivalent considerations; if geopolitics is a valid consideration so too must be gender and age.
Part Two
The implementation of gender equity in clubs and across districts and zones has been uneven at best and outright resisted at its worst. This is evidenced by the following data:
a) Over 6000 clubs are still exclusively male and a few are exclusively female. Exclusive gender clubs still account for approximately 20% of all Rotary clubs.
b) Gender equity by Zone ranges from a high of 34% to a low of 4%.
c) In 1995, eight women became the first District Governors in Rotary, yet the first woman R.I. Director was not elected until 2010, a stunning 15 year gap.
d) A case was brought against a club in the USA by the District Governors alleging discriminatory practices by a single gender male club. After being investigated by Rotary International, the club was found to be in compliance even though it still had no female members. The decision undermined the District Governors and the claims to gender equity Rotary purports to practice. It also revealed a serious gap in Rotary’s handling of such claims from a judicial perspective since to date no judicial appeal process is available to claimants on either side. This also sent the wrong message to the over 6000 single gender clubs.
e) It would appear that although the U. S. Supreme Court’s decision was rendered, in 1987, Rotary developed no strategic plan or goal to ensure gender equity was being implemented. The current strategic plan makes no reference to women only diversity by gender, and other factors. The recruitment of women is neither visible nor promoted. Further, clubs and districts are not required to report on their equity initiatives.
f) Rotary appears to lack transparency in reporting progress towards its gender equity goals.
g) Yet there can be no doubt about women’s interest in joining Rotary. Rotary’s decline in membership, particularly in North America, other English speaking countries and the European Union has been saved by its increase in female members. Had females not been admitted the decline would have been twice what it is today.
The revelation of these anomalies, by LinkedIn participants, has Rotary International charged with, at best, indifference to the issue of gender equity and at worst outright denial of discrimination against female membership. Anecdotal stories of actual discrimination were shared by many women and can be found scattered among the over 1800 posts.
Recommended Actions
As participants in the Rotary LinkedIn forum, we therefore recommend major revisions to both the legislation and practices. We want women and younger members in Rotary, who have for far too long been discriminated upon by the status quo, to see the possibility for leadership opportunities.
Recommended Actions Regarding Legislation
Our desire is to enhance the opportunities for women to experience leadership within Rotary beyond the level of club president in order to increase the number of candidates from which a future woman as president may be drawn as quickly as possible.
To achieve this end requires modification of Rotary legislation. In particular there must be a shortening of the numbers of years leading to advanced leadership possibility in Rotary.
We therefore recommend:
1. A thorough revision of the required prior service qualifications for a governor-nominee, governor, director and RI president.
2. Membership requirements for nominating committees at all levels in Rotary are broadened to include a wider range of experience consistent with the range of experience among all Rotarians and that each adheres to a gender distribution that is proportional to the total membership.
And further, with respect to the RI presidential nomination committee that the following three conditions be added.
i. Where the proportional number results in a fraction that member is from the minority gender.
ii. Zones be permitted to nominate one male and one female nominating committee candidate, and if and when necessary, the Board of Directors Executive Committee in consultation with the General Secretary may determine the appropriate candidate.
iii. And where a Zone nominates a male and female candidate both of who are past directors of RI, and both have chosen to serve on the nominating committee, preference be given to the female candidate if doing so will result in proportional representation without the necessity of an election.
3. With respect to the lexicon of “best” as in “10.010, Best Qualified Rotarian” the meaning of the word ‘best’ be defined with qualifying descriptors to support objective selection of the best candidate. This may mean a Rotarian who possesses the best combination of years of service, positions of responsibility, knowledge of Rotary, and a variety of experiences and skills which reflect the particular exigencies of the moment in time and place and are in the best interests of RI, Districts and Clubs.
Recommended Actions Regarding Practices
As observed, the issue of gender equity is complicated by the question of longevity in Rotary as it pertains to the selection of a President.
On average Rotarian women are younger than their male counterparts. Even the first woman Rotarian, would today, only be in her 25th year of service. When you consider for the past two decades the average tenure of a Rotarian who ascends to the presidency is thirty-five years of service, it is little wonder that there has been no woman as president.
Hence, Legislation has to make it possible for a woman to make it through Rotary’s many levels of leadership in a shorter period of time.
Legislation, however, may not be where the greatest problem arises. The real problem is the unwritten practices associated with extending and getting more and more out of fewer and fewer Rotarians.
Although, on the surface the reason for such practice is the belief that many years of training is required before one can become President, Rotary in our opinion has created a situation where stasis is a greater threat than inexperience.
The reasons for this state of paralysis are hard to pin down. On the surface, Rotary has provision for elections, but if a single overriding cause can be identified, it is the singular use of nominating committees, to choose governors, directors and the president. Leaders are chosen by previous leaders at all levels.
The consequence has been a leadership pattern characterized by patriarchy and oligarchy. Conformity, low levels of risk taking, a resistance to change were, and still are, the dominant characteristics of succeeding generations of greying governors, directors, and presidents. The advent of women into Rotary in 1987 presented an opportunity to prevent this drift toward stagnation.
We have concluded that there was a curious timing of events in the year 1995 which appears to be at the root of the problem. In that year, the nomination process was codified into Rotary’s constitution and by-laws. It was also the year that Rotarian membership was legitimated for retirees. These two decisions by themselves may have prevented any progressive changes from occurring. .
Was this planned or was this a coincidence, because 1995 was also the year Rotary’s first eight female District Governors were elected? Did a cabal of elites actually recognize the potential these women posed to the male hegemony within Rotary or was the nomination process and retired membership extension just coincidental?
To this end, we request Rotary International take the following actions.
1. Make a public statement to both internal and external communities to the effect that Rotary is committed to creating greater diversity and an increase in leadership opportunities for women.
2. Establish as quickly as possible a Presidential Committee with exemplary diverse membership to bring forth a report on how Rotary can
a. Increase the opportunities for more women but also younger or more recent Rotarians to attain leadership positions;
b. In addition to including proportional age and gender diversity factors in nomination committee membership change their role to a “qualification review function” or phase out “nomination committees” entirely;
c. Increase the choosing of leaders through direct elections by Rotarians in good standing using electronic voting procedures; and