Decision-Making by TNI Committees and Boards

Requirements and Guidance

Policy Committee Mission

Develops general policies and procedures for TNI. Resource for developing policies and SOPs Reviews existing policies and SOPs for

consistency and conformity with TNI mission

Provides recommendations for endorsement by TNI Board

Developers -- Reviewers

DEVELOP Policies and SOPs

Affecting more than one TNI Program

Administrative When directed by

TNI Board When requested by

a program or committee

REVIEW All policies and

SOPs Consistency among

each other Conformance to TNI

Mission Recommend

endorsement by TNI Board

Committee Profile

Administrative Committee Under direction of TNI Board Members are representatives of TNI

Programs and committees One member from the TNI Board One at-large member

Member -- Representing

Alfredo Sotomayor* Jerry Parr JoAnn Boyd RaeAnn Haynes Silky Labie Carol Schrenkel Steve Stubbs Bob Wyeth*Chair

TNI Board Ex-Officio LASC Proficiency Testing Consensus

Standards Technical Assistance NELAP Advocacy

Hierarchy of Normative Documents

Articles of Incorporation Bylaws General TNI Policies

General TNI SOPs General TNI Guidance

Program Policies Program SOPs

General TNI Guidance Need to look at all to completely

understand process

Document Process

Draft, finalize, and approve policies and SOPs Refer to other programs when needed for

concurrent approval Send to Policy Committee for consistency

review Send to TNI Board

Organizational impact Final endorsement

Post on TNI Website

Ownership

Charter guides creation of product Drafter owns product Reviewer suggests changes Drafter responds to suggested

changes All can review, suggest Only drafter can change product

General Policies and SOPs

Creating General Policies for TNI

Conflicts of Interest Ethical Conduct of

TNI Member Use of TNI Logos

and Marks Management of

Records

Format Guidelines for SOPs of TNI

Operations of TNI Committees and Program Boards

Decision-Making Rules for TNI Committees and Boards

Why Tackle Decision-Making?

Global issue Outcome of all deliberations Prelude to committee products Policy Committee felt guidance would

be useful We are all concerned about “voting” Integral to ensuring mission

The SOP

SOP 1 – 102: Decision-Making Rules for TNI Committees and Boards

Endorsed: TNI Board: December 12, 2007

Effective: January 31, 2008 Implementation: May 1, 2008 Applicability: All TNI Programs and

Committees

Requirements

Declare type of rule used to make a specific decision

Establish clear decision points Establish quorum requirements

No fewer than three Committee Members or Directors

Record in the minutes all decisions made For motions, record text, originator, and

member who seconds

Options to Requirements

Consider allowing absent members to register a vote

Change rule for making a decision following an established rule

Document votes cast by each member

Record a minority or dissenting opinion

Foundation for Decision-Making

Participatory decision-making leads to sustainable agreements

Clear decision points mark the moment and allow proceeding with implementation

Decision-making by clear rules promotes accountability and ownership

All decisions made should follow established rules.

Types of Decisions

High-stakes Long lasting results Not easily reversible Can be complex or contentious Affect many Require ownership by many

Low-stakes Simple, routine

High or Low?

Where will the committee have dinner? Who will be a committee member? How are minutes approved? When is an SOP revised? How often does the program board

meet? How is the committee’s charter

approved? Who will be the Chair of TNI Board?

Types of Decision-Making Rules

Flip a coin Person-in-charge decides without

discussion Person-in-charge decides after

discussion Majority vote* Enthusiastic support* Unanimous agreement**Rules that can involve consensus, a participatory process of

deliberation to make a decision

“Flip a Coin”

Arbitrary, random Picking numbers from a hat, lottery

Not appropriate for high-stakes decisions

Good for quick low-stakes decisions Will the minutes be printed on blue or

white paper? Will the Chair buy dinner for committee

members?

Person-in-Charge Decides

Without Discussion Good for low-stakes decisions For high-stakes decisions:

Connects authority with accountability Can create blind spots By delegation of a group to a leader In times of crisis

Example Chair cancels scheduled meeting Executive Director chooses sweatshirt

color

Person-in-Charge Decides

After Discussion Combines authority with advice

Can promote giving false advice Works well using devil’s advocate thinking

May seem wasteful for low-stakes decision

Example Executive Director chooses meeting

locale after considering advice of planning committee

Majority Vote

Most commonly used rule Group can decide on majority level

Simple, 51% Two-thirds

Creates winners and losers Works well for quick low-stakes

decisions

Enthusiastic Support

Strives for unanimity, but recognizes it is not always possible

Very good for high-stakes decisions Support is registered on a scale Characterizes degree of support more

accurately Can lead to alternative decision-making

rule Group decides on scale and level of

support to use

Gradients of Agreement

Endorse Agree with reservation Mixed feelings Don’t like, but won’t block Veto

Rule in Action

Can use colors Green = complete agreement Red = VETO

Can use numbers 5 = Complete agreement 1 = VETO

Key is to decide before you are considering a proposal

Example

To elect a Chair, a Board requires: That 8 out 10 members register

agreement on first three levels, but a veto does not defeat proposal

To remove a member, a committee requires: That 7 out of 10 members register

agreement on the first two levels, that all members vote, and veto defeats proposal

Unanimous Agreement

Most involved Takes time and understanding All have veto power Effort is rewarded with sustainability Example

To recognize an accreditation body, a board requires unanimity

Reaching Closure

Last phase of decision-making Essential and crucial, yet often

omitted If you don’t close it, it remains open Reach closure via a meta-decision

“Meta-Decision”

A decision made by a group or person-in-charge that determines whether a decision on a proposal under discussion can or cannot be made. You are deciding whether you can

decide

Example

To approve SOP Policy Committee requires: RULE: Enthusiastic support SUPPORT LEVEL*: All votes in top three

levels, no vetoes, all members vote IF NO SUPPORT (IMPASSE): Redraft and

reconsider FINAL CONSIDERATION*: If no support

again, simple majority will decide*Meta-decision points: Chair decides when to end

discussion

Roadmap to Your Decision-Making

Tabulate the types of decisions you make

Assign a rule to each type of decision Establish how to change an assigned rule

What to do if there is an impasse Approve the decision-making scheme

By an appropriate rule Consider the meta-decisions

Document all decisions made

Conformance to TNI Mission

Promotes openness Upfront decisions

Creates transparency Documents crucial transactions

Ensures inclusiveness All accounted, all participate

In Other Words

Read it Understand it Walk it

Implement by May 1, 2008