ADA seeks transformative change with governance review

A great deal has changed in the six decades or so since 1960.

One thing that has not, however, is the governance model of the ADA which has not been successfully reviewed and updated since the Cuban Missile Crisis of that year.

Recognising the current model, which encompasses a large 18-person Council and five-member Executive, is no longer fit-for-purpose, a governance review has been initiated that hopes to make the way the ADA is governed more nimble and responsive to current and future challenges and requirements.

Mindful that the law requires that a Board of Directors needs to act in the best interests of the organisation to which they are appointed and that they should be representative of members as a whole, the review is seeking a model that is more representative and which ensure that members’ voices are heard by a Board which has the requisite skills and diversity of experience.
 

Steps taken so far

The review began late last year when the ADA federally appointed a Governance Working Party (GWP), chaired by Dr Stephen Parker, which was charged with consulting and developing a more fit for purpose governance model. 

The GWP, which also included Dr Janina Christoforou, Dr Gtikia Sanghvi, Dr Adrian Frick, Dr Nomikos Rakkas and Mr Peter Binetter (Independent Chair of the ADA Audit and Risk Committee) as members, has met every few weeks since late last year and has consulted broadly across stakeholders and members. 

In addition to the work of the GWP, expert governance and legal support has been provided by Jenny Robertson and Rebecca Mitchell of Board Matters. A governance summit was also held with Federal Executive and Branch Presidents to consider a draft proposal which was then posted on Peer for discussion by ADA members.

This work has resulted in a draft proposal which provides for a Board of Directors of seven including two skills-based directors and a Board Nominations Committee appointed by branches and a representative policy council to ensure balanced representation to the Board.

There has been some debate around whether an election based on recommendations made by the Board Nominations Committee will achieve the required skills and perspective balance given the limited information available to members on skills, attributes and performance, so an alternative has been proposed which allows for the branch appointed nominations committee to recommend the board for ratification by members rather than an election.
 
A draft constitution is now being drafted and if approved by Federal Council is expected to be voted on at the AGM in November.