Retreat Proceedings

From Common Energy UVic

These are the proceedings of the Governance Retreat. They will form a foundation for the work of the Development team and the Network Development Team.

Participants Naomi Devine, Liz Farris, Andrew Bateman, Jamie Biggar, Heather English, Jill Doucette, Maggie Baynham, Emily Keller, Mark Chandler, Dylan Sherlock, Heather McKenzie, Brandy Sistili, Megan Jerke, Alex

[edit] Summary of Secession I: Decision-Making

This secession began with some group framing exercises, the group discussed characteristics of good and bad group process. This activity framed the proceeding of the weekend.

Appreciative Inquiry: The question put to the group was: What was the best decision making process you have been a part of?

Everyone shared with the group their experiences, and again the group outlined some common characteristics which would later be used when designing and deciding on a decision making structure for CE.

[edit] Summary of Secession II: Decision Making

Secession began with a short Power Point Presentation that outlined a variety of decision making process at the group’s disposal. If you would like a copy of the presentation please email (Brandy Sistili at bsistili@gmail.com)

A brief discussion began about techniques and some powerful/important arose which help frame and make our first major decision of the retreat.

• What is the general decision-making structure/process for CE?

• How does a toolkit fit in?
• Do we want to look at the option of having a hierarchy of process?

• What structure is already present?

• CE UVic has operated with a general understanding that we work by informal consensus but, had difficulty when it comes to decision-making. This problem is likely to grow as grow.
• CE UBC has had no formalized process currently – mostly discussion with a small group

• Are the right people in the room? How do we decide that? How many people are enough? (not at the retreat but, in general with Informal consensus)

• Do we want it as formal as Robert’s Rules?

Decision context:

• Informal consensus may not be sufficient but, something as formal as Robert’s Rules may create too many barriers for participation.
• In the interest of promoting participation, informed consent, addressing contentious issues, establishing a structure for addressing urgent issues, and in addition to the protocols previously established in CE

Decision made:

• To adopt the MFC model as a decision-making model for CE.
• The MFC model, including self-described limitations and will be further developed by following the MFC model link.

[edit] Summary of Secession III: Provincial Network

Intro to Sierra Youth Coalition - Structure (national) – role as “consulting” students on how to get sustainability policy, - Process of multi-stakeholder, research, project implementation o Common Energy is a great example of a process that reflects our philosophy - Resources, tools  several guides that can be used to support CE work - Partnerships – Energy Action, Campus Climate Challenge – different approach and “climate” in the States, valuable tools and resources, need to assert Canadian approach

Funding - McConnell Foundation (progressive, flexible deliverables) - Energy Action (deliverables relating to campuses that have signed on, media hits, student leaders involved, GHG inventories etc) - Common Energy – to build a provincial campaign

Campuses update: - Looking at unique “personality” of each school, their strengths, weaknesses, capacity, etc - PAC – Provincial Action Committee o Representatives from each of nine schools meet monthly via teleconference to share ideas, support, feedback  facilitated by SYC o Began to talk of unified provincial campaign at end of last year – climate change would be excellent since virtually all existing initiatives (food, energy, transport etc) fit under climate change umbrella

- Need to think of how other campuses may fit into Common Energy as we move through the sessions – decision making, bylaws, policy etc.

Discussion

What does CE hope to gain from the formation of a provincial network? (These were recorded on a flipchart – here are some that I remember) - Lobbying of provincial gov’t (eg. Upass at every school) - Sharing of knowledge, resources - Ability to leverage own administration – competition - Larger media draw

• The flip charts disappeared so—our collective memory would be great here!!!!

[edit] Summary of Secession IV: Fundraising

Open Space: In this secession we asked very generally what does CE need to think about in regard to fundraising. This secession concluded with a fantastic discussion and a mind- map which will provide us with much direction.

[edit] Summary of Secession V: By-laws and Constitution

This secession began with a power point presentation. If you would like a copy of this presentation please email Naomi. Distributed were also example of the BCSEA by-laws, and Schedule B which created context for the following decisions.

Decision: to amend the constitution so that it reflects the vision of the society. Constitution

1. The name of the society is Common Energy Society.
2. The purposes of the society are:
   • To foster the creation and implementation of local solutions to climate change.
   • To work to move universities, colleges, and technical and other educational institutions, beyond climate neutral. Beyond climate neutral means that an institution does more to solve climate change than it does to cause it.
   • To build a collaborative network of students, staff, faculty, and regional partners to address the concerns of climate change and the impacts that institutions of higher learning have on this issue.
   • In all of its activities, the Society shall not discriminate against any person or persons on the basis of gender, religion, creed, colour, age, citizenship, place of origin, sexual orientation, marital status, appearance, or physical or mental ability.
   • Upon the winding up or dissolution of Common Energy, any assets remaining, after the satisfaction of its debts and liabilities, shall be given or transferred to such university organizations promoting the objectives similar to those set out in Paragraph 2 (above) herein, as may be decided by the members of Common Energy at the time of winding down or dissolution. This article is alterable.

[edit] Summary Secession VI Bylaws: Becoming a Member of the Society

World Café was used to flesh out what it means to be a member of Common Energy. The World Café consisted of two questions and the following is a summary written during the feedback secession.

1. What does it mean to be a member “not in good standing”?

• Membership self-defined – active or passive. On your user page.
• Not adhering to the bylaws and principles – with malice. (proof
• Process for removal: power to team/board? No b/c of too many questions and embarrassment.
• Tribunal pool of members – like jury duty. Members chosen randomly to decide on disputes.
• Membership defined:
• Active: participation.
• Passive: needs to be better defined.
• Membership defined:
• Different roles and responsibilities for each type, however bylaws, etc apply to both.

2. What is unique about CE membership?

• Defined through participation.
• Non-member can participate in meetings.
• Members – decisions on money.
• How do you become: through participation. Occurs through people vouching based on a series of guidelines.
• Individuals vs. companies (institutions): stay away from UVic and UBC call themselves members. CE exists at both schools and the people are the members of the society.
• Companies could be passive members/participants. Not legal members.
• Company can be a member of the network, not decision making bodies.

During the report back a larger discussion began surrounding these two questions, the most valuable information to be harvested from that conversation is the following;

This Diagram represents the way we can talk about the society and its interactions with each other and the Provincial Network

Decisions were made about bylaws 1. Every member must uphold the constitution and comply with bylaws

2. Membership based on participation and not on a fee.

We are left with some structured questions needing to be answers. 1. How do we decide legal membership

• If its not financial, then we must look as some sort of numerical equalivant
• It’s based on participation- what type (training, hours in….)

2. Are there varying degrees of membership? What does that mean in a commons?

It was suggested i. Participant

ii. Active member or working member

iii. Passive member or supporting

This discussion was framed within a brainstorm. A member?

• Act in best interest of CE
• Difference between legal members and participatory members
• Must adhere to guidelines and principles
• Membership is not based on fees
• Membership is participation
• Regulation through participation
• Membership by vouching
• Members should not continuously disrupt the process
• Members should self-identify type
• Members responsibilities and rights
• Low information barriers to entry
• Agree with principles and goals
• Need to be able to remove members
• Members can be expelled on proper grounds
• Membership will not be discriminated against for reasons of personal or political view point
• Members without access to laptops and other kind of technology should be encouraged and enabled (no technological barrier)
• Consensus equivalent of one member one vote
• Training for membership should be free
• No voting
• MFC model is decision making structure
• Some method of discipline

[edit] Summary Secession VII Bylaws: What does our Board look like?

We unfortunately never got to this piece of the agenda but, needed to make some quick follow through decision.

It was decided that on the Common Energy level- a sub-committee/body will be formed comprised of UBC and UVic members.

This “development” body has been called the Network Development Team an is comprised of any members of CE who want to be a part of it. It should also include technology that allows us to conduct remote meetings (eg. Tele- and videoconference). At a minimum this body’s quorum will be two members from each “hub”.

This body’s meetings should be focused on one theme at a time. It must tie up loose ends by making recommendations in the following areas, to the appropriate body:

• Make recommendations of members to the CE Board of Directors for ratification. Further explore what it is to be a member of CE and recommend those changes to the bylaws

• Decide on a second interim Board structure

• The Board has to meet and decide on the recommendations of the CE Development team.

Proposal sent to the retreat group, approved, then send to BOD of CE, they will hold a meeting and decide upon the proposal. DECISION: agreed.