-
Sorry Alex, this time you’ve managed to avoid mansplaining as I am a man; you have only been unpleasant and condescending. Never fear though, your previous comments such as “stick to its knitting” and “diversity is important but not a diversity of competence”[1] makes your misogyny and cultural prejudice clear enough. Which is at odds with the ‘binder letter’, which reads, in part, “ensuring an appropriate balance of representation, accountability and diversity on the Board of Directors for all categories of stakeholders”.
One of the basics of rules of order is one follows the agenda and format once that agenda and format have been moved, seconded, and passed, as occurred at the meeting. You insisted on doing things your way and prefacing your questions with lengthy monologues and opinions, which were not necessary to ask the questions. As the chair repeatedly indicated there was opportunity for comments after the questions, so you ignoring the format was unnecessary and unwelcome. You say, “your viewpoint notwithstanding”, however I warrant that Pedro would agree, along with many members who feel you waste the time of the assembly.
Re: “Zoom and Teams”; this section of your comment clearly demonstrates your lack of technology and technology professionals.
As for CIRA making the platform work, CIRA was not operating the backend software, it was the third-party vendor. In addition, I am waiting to see if, based on the request in the evaluation survey by members such as myself who request it, there is a post-mortem on what was the source of issues with the platform. For myself, I suspect it is related to the ongoing cyber-attacks against Canadian targets, particularly in Ottawa. (It’s been enough of a problem to make into the mainstream news).
Re: CIRA’s mission. And here we go with the innuendo and allegations that CIRA is being mismanaged. The funny thing is, as a member of local NFP organizations, and closely following the local council, I have seen kinds of belief systems around supposed corruption and self-serving behaviour. It’s especially egregious in the case of an NFP where I volunteer, and am a member, where I have witnessed how the Executive Director has dedicated her life to the mission of the NFP, going far ‘above and beyond’ what is expected of an ED and the compensation package she receives.
In any event, the point is you seem to believe yourself to be a superior expert in law and business, and yet are making the same errors as folks with no business or legal knowledge.
You, as a self-identified expert, ought to be aware it takes more than a random person saying, “those numbers are too high”, and when given an explanation, claiming that it’s a bogus answer and a cover-up.
Now, if you have reasonable comparators (comparing CIRA to the YMCA, for example would not work), and there are many issues which significantly out-of-line, you begin to have a case for doing more investigation.
Likewise, with CEO compensation, I may have the political view that CEO and executives are more highly compensated than is close to fair, but I also understand that finding talent is highly competitive, and that unless the membership gives clear direction (e.g. a motion made and accepted at the AGM) around changing the basis for setting CEO compensation, the standard and norm for setting compensation is a committee such as the ‘Compensation and Review’ committee, sometimes with advice from a third-party consultant.
Further, I note that in 2020 the motion: “CIRA should disclose NEO compensation – base salary, all bonuses, all benefits, and including severance package – of all executives reporting to the CEO earning a total annual compensation greater than $150,000 as set out in CIRA’s annual statements.” was defeated by the membership at the AGM.
Finally, it is common practise with local NFPs to have such a committee and to protect privacy of the exective team, so I strongly question your claims around norms and standards in this area. If anything, I would argue that this is an area of public discussion and debate, and that the outcome and choice is not clear at this time.
[1] To be clear, having competent board members is important; that is not the issue. The issue is your implication that ‘outsider’ groups are inherently not as competent and are only being considered for diversity reasons, rather than the reality that when candidates are of similar qualifications, that it is valid to seek a range of backgrounds and experiences.