Talk:Draft report on sub-committees

We have been thinking about this for a while. The person originally doing this has been a bit overwhelmed by other things so I put this together with the help of staff and Doug as a way forward. Thoughts pleaseJon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I've made one change (while logged out I see). The basic starter kit is: Executive, Finance (inc. Audit), Governance, & maybe Operations & Membership. With (currently) a very small board, the need for them lessens, but they are a way of engaging non-trustees, & those staff members not at every board meeting. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

See also the draft at General Committee Charter. Generally a board "sub-committee" would have its voting membership restricted to board members, often with staff as "observers" - as in councils etc. Plain "committee" is probably a better term for the mixed-member bodies we envisage. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a very important point. "Sub-committee of the WMUK board" and "WMUK committee" are two very different things. The education committee, for instance, is the latter. The Executive committee (if formally constituted as a committee with delegated authority - I think it's just a "working group" now) is the former. I think they should be treated completely separately, any attempt to treat them together as this report is trying to do will just lead to confusion. --Tango (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Follow up from board meeting

At the board meeting on the weekend of 9th/10th February, as part of the governance review, we discussed the need for a discussion around sub-committees. This has been delegated to a working party of three trustees. They will be looking at how these sub committees would work, whether they would have delegated powers, who would serve on them etc.

In current thinking we are discussing the following sub-committees:

Governance Committee

• establishing and maintaining a grid of the skills and experience required on the board and identifying those that are currently met and unmet
• organising the review of the performance of trustees before they seek re-election
• managing the process of electing trustees including checking that potential conflicts of interest are declared in advance and are permissible and manageable, and proposing any policies to inform the election.
• When required, advising the board on the eligibility for company membership, including whether company members who are blocked from editing or other principal activities of the movement should have their company membership terminated.
• informing the organisation’s members of the skills and experience the organisation requires and when appropriate actively encouraging people with those skills to stand for election.
• organising the review of the overall performance of governance at least once every two years
• anticipating and managing the process of succession of the Chair.

Audit Committee

• making recommendations to the board on the appointment of auditors

• previewing the annual report and accounts, to ensure a quality document goes to the board

• reviewing the charity’s annual statement on internal control and its compliance with regulatory guidance and recommending it to the board.

• previewing the risk register to ensure that a considered document goes to the board

• undertaking other Audit Committee responsibilities as set out in the guidance from the Charity Finance Group.

Education Committee

• Already in action and working on all areas relating to Education and training.

GLAM Committee

• Has met from time to time to discuss GLAM issues.

Technical Committee

• Already in action and working on all areas relating our technical needs.

Events committee

• Already in action and working on all areas relating to events such as our annual conference and Wikimania.

Please add your thoughts below. Jon Davies (WMUK) (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As this is a wiki, I've introduced directly some alternate forms for some of the descriptors. I assume that when GovCom considers the draft, it can firm this up as required.

My own preference for working is in flatter, looser structures, but I know that doesn't suit everybody. I prefer having someone agreeing to ensure the meeting is run well and someone agreeing to ensure that the record of the meeting is delivered to the WMUK Wiki; others may be more comfortable with a Chair and Secretary. I'd like to think that we could be flexible enough to accommodate different styles, but I don't want to impose my own predilections on others. --RexxS (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)