Greetings, Sir Knights! We are under 50 days until the 69th Triennial Conclave in Salt Lake City. Today, I’d like to address how we might take the mission and vision and take action regarding governance. I have spoken and written a great deal about the challenges we have with our current governing documents–the Constitution, Statutes, and Decisions of the Grand Encampment. Today, I’d like to spend a few minutes addressing some general principles we might consider as part of a comprehensive review and revision. 1. Start with a blank page. Let’s start with a clean slate and identify the topics we should include in revised governance documents. What things are the explicit perogative of the Grand Encampment? What decisions and actions can be taken by a Grand Commandery? What rests in the hands of the local Commandery? Should there be basic qualifications for office at every level? How do we hold leaders accountable for their actions? How much detail needs to be in the Consitution or Bylaws, and what should be in Continuing Resolutions or some form of policy document? These and similar questions should be addressed first as a way to scope any review or revision project. 2. Prescriptive or Proscriptive. Related to item 1, we should decide if our governing documents should be prescriptive,stating what can be done, or proscriptive, stating what cannot be done. When I was serving in the military, most regulations were writing from a prescriptive perspective. That is, unless stated otherwise, if the regulation did not prohibit something, it was permitted. Uniform regulations, for example, were regulations that stated “If it’s not listed here, it’s not permitted.” This approach often results in shorter, more accessible governance documents and fewer requests for decisions by the Grand Commander or Grand Master. It does require writing sound, understandable guidelines, or boundaries, in the documents to make identifying what is in bounds and what is out of bounds. However, in doing that, it also provides flexibility to Grand Commanderies and Constituent/Subordinate Commanderies. 3. Model Constitution and Bylaws for Grand Commanderies and Commanderies. Should we have a model for Grand Commanderies and Commanderies to use for their own governing documents? Would standard formats make it easier to follow and maintain them? Can we use the models to eliminate duplication of information from higher level documents and allow the local versions to address only the Grand Commandery or Commandery unqiue situations? 4. Grand Master Decisions. Instead of decisions standing for decades, should decisions become part of the Constitution and Statutes to which the decision applies as part of the approval process at each Triennial (or Special) Conclave when approved by the voting members? Would this make tracking and understanding the impact of Decisions easier? Would it change how voting members consider the approval or rejection of Grand Master’s Decisions knowing that acceptance would make it a part of the governing documents? Could a Decision be accepted for teh specific circumstance presented, but rejected as a permanent addition to the governing documents? These are just some starting points for conversation. I would love to hear from you and learn what your thoughts might be when it comes to our governance and how we document it for our future growth and progress. |