Opening Board Meetings to the World
What if all association board meetings were Web-streamed live? Would board members or senior staff change their behavior if it was being witnessed potentially by the entire membership? Would they flee behind "executive sessions," be less likely to tolerate a vocal minority that is disrupting the agenda, take the safe road and say or do little, or embrace the change as the best way to ensure board members are acting and voting in ways that meet the expectations and desires of members?
The concept came up in a recent interview I was doing with a Canadian foundation executive director and his nonprofit's co-founder. We were talking about transparency trends in organizations, and the ED noted that technology has made efforts by organizations to be transparent much cheaper. But were leaders ready for that level of openness and associated accountability, I wondered? The ED didn't think they would have much of a choice soon.
I asked another nonprofit CEO for his thoughts on the topic. He laughed ... and laughed some more. His board members would "freak" at the idea of being live on the Web site during their meetings, he said. In fact, he didn't think they'd even be willing to publicly vote on the idea. Board meetings can be really messy, he continued. Volunteer leaders don't necessarily want members to know how ugly some meetings can get, how far off the concept of strategic guidance their meeting agendas and discussions may be, which topics generate the least and most debate, etc.
I wondered if anyone has actually tried streaming board meetings live on the Internet and what type of engagement and response from members such an experiment might have generated. Please share if you have.
| | Permalink |
Comments
Call me a Luddite, but governance is (or should not be) not a TV reality show. I watch Congress on C-SPAN and see our elected officials posture, preen and pontificate, knowing full well the real work (such that it is) is done not there in front of the cameras -- that's just talk -- but behind closed doors. Live streaming Board meetings won't create member engagement; instead, I suspect it would hamper serious, genuine reflection and real deliberative strategic thinking and replace it with the same kind of over-the-top showmanship we get from Congress. The Board meetings in the association I work for are open to all...all who are interested enough to show up. For the rest, we communicate agendas in advance of the meetings and report action items afterward.
Posted by: Scott Brunner | December 14, 2009 6:05 PM
This is such an interesting idea, I've also wondered if board meetings were out there, how would the association change over time? There would be some challenging legal issues, and my biggest fear would be people not feeling comfortable stating their true feelings...however, it could be a great way to get people more engaged in the association! What if you generally held this open door policy, but reserved the right to go into exec session based on certain pre-defined criteria, which were set in stone?
Posted by: Brian Birch | December 14, 2009 6:06 PM
I had to both laugh and cringe at this idea--not in a mean way, of course, but like the CEO you're writing about. It would be worth posing to a board just to watch their reactions--I wonder if anyone would NOT freak.
I must be old school because I have bought into the sacred behind-doors-ness of board meetings. But maybe there is something to the idea of opening up board meetings to anyone interested in attending. It would be a good way of identifying people interested and engaged enough to subject themselves to the meetings. Live streaming, though...I don't know...but probably just because I can imagine myself and my fidgeting through a meeting being broadcast and it's not a pretty picture ;)
Posted by: Maggie McGary | December 14, 2009 9:43 PM
In Ontario, Canada, my understanding is that non-profit organizations that are publicly funded are open to the public. That is, if and when a board meeting is held, anyone - anyone - can attend. So the difference is in-person vs. virtually. A really interesting question, esp. is archival features are available. I'm going to raise it at the next board meeting I attend and see what kind of reaction I get from fellow board members. I suspect shock.
Posted by: zs | December 14, 2009 11:20 PM
There's an important difference between "open to the public" and "watched by the public." My bet is that, for many associations, a live-streamed board meeting that can be viewed by any member with an internet connection might still only get a handful of viewers, the people willing to, as Maggie put it, "subject themselves" to it. I mean, how many of you watch C-SPAN regularly (at least those of you who aren't lobbyists)?
To assume every member would watch a live-streamed board meeting is forget that, at most associations, the vast majority of members are rank-and-file "mailboxers" who are fairly unengaged. A board-meeting telecast seems like the last thing that would catch their interest.
So here's the question: Which is more worth freaking out about? The entire association membership watching a board meeting live over the internet, or broadcasting the board meeting live over the internet only to find out that few, if any, members actually care?
Posted by: Joe Rominiecki | December 15, 2009 9:40 AM
Let's Find Out!! I would be willing to donate our virtual platform to any association who is interested in streaming their board meeting to their members. with our 3D platform your members will not only watch, they could participate in their own discussions while it goes on. Talk about transparency!!
Contact me at 800-679-3646 if you are interested in seeing who Freaks out!!
Posted by: James Parker | December 18, 2009 9:54 AM