Feature
Page 12
Five years of 'OF'
What a difference a dot makes
Next month marks the fifth anniversary of a landmark shift in blind people's self-determination. It's now five years since the Foundation became OF, rather than FOR, its members.
The actual change only required rubbing out one dot in braille, but the significance of that one dot was huge. It spelled the end of more than a century of paternalistic thinking which had dictated the kind of support services offered and who would make those decisions.
The Board of Trustees was largely appointed by the Government and by advisory committees (now Community Committees). Out of 15 Trustees, blind people elected two and parents elected one. All three had to be ratified by the Minister of Education.
In 2003, a new era began for blind and vision-impaired people to shape their own future. But what has the paradigm shift meant in practice?
"Participation, consultation and partnership are the key words," says Foundation Chairman Don McKenzie. "It's fair to say that members, if they so choose, can more readily participate in the way services are crafted, bearing in mind that there will always be external factors that have to be considered. For example, hikes in professional salaries that put pressure on our finances. Changes to services are openly discussed, however, along with the reasons for them."
The new Constitution gave members the right to be informed about governance issues in their preferred format, to attend Board meetings, have their say at Annual Meetings and through the Consumer Consortia. The Chief Executive, Directors and senior management took to the road with strategic plans. The Board established a Stakeholder Relations Committee and invited consumer organisations to the table to talk.
Before these changes in governance, there was growing animosity about the way the old Board was working, says Clive Lansink, President of the
Page 13
Association of Blind Citizens of New Zealand Inc. "It was seen as largely out of touch and there wasn't a mechanism for the membership to change the Board."
The transition had taken seven years to debate. When the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind Act came into being in April 2003, a team of six people had worked monumentally hard on the legislation, on a new Constitution, voting processes for Directors and rethinking the roles of both consumer organisations and advisory committees.
The Act allowed Foundation members to vote for eight seats on the Board. Associate members were given one seat. It removed all Parliamentary involvement in the Constitution and in the long-term direction and running of the Foundation's affairs.
Although the Board no longer has a specific parent representative, Paul Manning, Executive Officer of Parents of Vision Impaired (PVI), is positive about the governance reforms.
"Governance has improved remarkably since the transition," he says. "It's more open, more transparent. Before the changes) PVI didn't have a relationship with the Board. We'd met the Board for dinner once every two years! The Board now has made strong attempts to get to know us … and has a clear understanding of the issues. There's an attitude of real partnership, which is coming through loud and clear these days. We used to not trust one another. That's changed, and I think it's really healthy."
As a result of this partnership approach, the Foundation, PVI, ABC and others in the "united blindness community" have jointly lobbied Government for additional funding for blindness education.
Even with the new RNZFB Constitution and much improved consultation, it doesn't mean that every request can be acted on. Often a new service can only be implemented at the expense of an existing one, unless other efficiencies or additional funding is found.
The process needs to go a step further, to become one of engagement by equals, says
Page 14
Clive. "Consultation is top down. There's still a place for it but there needs to be another layer of active partnership and dialogue in the decision-making process. Some people think consultation is just about putting out a paper and waiting for a response, then management goes away and makes a decision. Even if you do make a submission on a paper, you don't know the level of debate that goes on about your submission – it could be two minutes or a whole day. You can feel let down by that process because you haven't had a chance to eyeball Directors and argue the point," Clive says.
Active partnership bears fruits in both directions, adds Paul. "The Board now realises that consumer groups have good networks in local communities which they can tap into. They're trying to work smarter."
The Consumer Consortia is agreed by all to have been a strong part of the development of positive and proactive relationships in recent years. The Consortia has been held twice per year. In 2008 it will meet at least three times.
"Each respective party is learning to listen to each other," says Ngāti Kāpo National Manager Chrissie Cowan. Ngāti Kāpo believes that for partnership to have real meaning under te Tiriti o Waitangi, however, a Māori voice on the Board is still a prerequisite.
"Although Ngāti Kāpo provides a level of policy advice to the RNZFB, the lack of Māori voices within the Board itself does raise the question of whether the Directors are in tune with kāpo Māori needs," she says.
Approximately 3,000 members, and 189 Associate members, voted in the Foundation "Of" the Blind's first Board election in April 2003, and there has been a steady decline in voting each year since then.
"How can members actually judge performance and stamp their authority as a voter when we don't have an independent media or informed journalism to tell us what's really going on, as we do with Parliament for example? People write glowing CVs about themselves but you have no real idea about the candidate's belief system and whether it equates to your own," says Clive.
Camille Guy of Retina New Zealand – herself a journalist – suggests the solution could be to set up a regular newsletter, one that is independent and representative of the many voices among members. "Something that's not a PR vehicle.
Page 15
There are issues brought out all the time by email, through the Vision-Impaired list. Members take up issues a lot, but how much of that goes back to the Foundation? I think until we have an independent newsletter that can provide information on what Board members' policies are, until we've got a 'fourth estate' commenting, the voting process is not going to be effective…The membership is simply not well enough informed."
Chief Executive Sandra Budd plans to discuss these ideas in future Consumer Consortia. "We have tried to include more 'news and views' from consumer organisations in Foundation publications. That will continue. And in 2008 we will be looking at how to better deliver Foundation news to members. I'd be happy to consider collaborating with consumer organisations to host candidate forums. We also could discuss taking a more newspaper-like approach to reviewing the backgrounds of those running for Board. But I wonder whether this might discourage some members from running. Would they be happy for a journalist to scrutinise their past?" she asks.
Don McKenzie adds that there are a number of external measures in place to determine the Board's overall performance. These include having external auditors and independent Board evaluations. For three years straight, the Foundation's Annual Report has won top honours in governance reporting from the NZ Institute of Chartered Accountants, with judges saying the Foundation is a "transparent and well-governed organisation".
"It is tough going managing and directing non-profit enterprises like the Foundation. The role calls for a rare combination of emotional and intellectual intelligence, humility, commitment, energy, and time to listen and learn the specifics of the field," says Don.
The Board has asked an external panel to look at the Foundation's governing rules with a view to recommending any improvements in terms of clarity or current governance practice. It would then be up to the membership to approve any alterations to the Constitution. "It's not mandatory, but we're doing it anyway. The review is being conducted by people well-versed in governance and the original drafting, to see if the Constitution is doing what it set out to do, and whether in the light of new evidence of good governance practice any further changes are required," Don says.