ASA Committee Review Consultation

7 May - 4 June 2008

Feedback: To leave your comments to following questions simply open the attachement (CLICK HERE) and follow the instructions.

Introduction

The purpose of this consultation is to guide the ASA Board in the preparation of a document for ASA Council in October 2008.  The ASA would want to have the benefit of the views of the membership on the purpose and structure of its committees in order to ensure that they are fit for purpose to deliver key objectives set out in the ASA’s Strategic Plan and Vision.

Questions are intended to help members in providing comments but the aim is not to limit debate.  If you think there are other relevant issues, please feel free to include them in your response.

The consultation period will run until 4 June 2008 and the findings will be reported back to ASA Board on 27 June 2008, to allow discussion before preparation of appropriate information for ASA Council in October 2008.  Therefore we would like to invite members to give their views either through the website or in writing on the principles of the Review as outlined below.

If in writing please send to

Anne Adams- King
Director of English Programmes
Harold Fern House
Loughborough
Leics
LE11 5AL

What is this Consultation all about?

Background

Following their appointment in 2007 the majority of ASA Technical Chairmen started to consider the role and purpose of the Committees to meet the needs of the sport today.  They expressed a desire to ensure their Committees cover all the areas, which the sport is now involved in, and that there was a need to establish their roles and responsibilities.

Some Committees began to review their roles and responsibilities: Open Water has a revised structure in place at present which has been agreed by the Board; Diving has ensured all specialist members have discreet areas of responsibility, whereby they consult with appropriate people outside the committee structure to formulate plans for the delivery of events, officials’ development, competition framework etc.  The regional representatives on the Committee are responsible for ensuring the delivery of these programmes in the Regions working in consultation with the National Development Officers and other appropriate partners.

The ASA Board agreed in November 2007 that the ASA Committees required a review in order for them to be fit for purpose to deliver key objectives set out in the ASA’s Strategic Plan and Vision.  A Committee Review group that was established by the ASA Board to give its recommendations for change.

The Review group representatives were made up of three representatives from the current Committees and three representatives from the ASA Regions.

Committee representatives:
Dr Ian Gordon, Gail Harrison and Andrew Marvin

Regional representatives:
Will Collins, Paul Wells and Josie Grange

Why is the ASA looking to review the Committee Structure?

1.   It is recognised that the ASA is now ‘more than a governing body’ and that it services the       needs of sport on a more general level, therefore it requires a structure to be able to deliver at ’Strategic/policy’ and Operational/delivery levels based on the following principles; Effectiveness 1.1   Clear targets and the ability to measure and evaluate delivery performance. 1.2   Groups with defined roles. 1.3   The right people to deliver the content and the performance. Efficiency 1.4   Communicate better and carry out business in a time and cost effective way. 1.5   Collaboration with other groups, staff, members and non-members as required. 1.6   Ability to facilitate meaningful debate and quick well researched and correct decisions.

Question 1:

Members are invited to provide comments on whether the above principles form the basis of a structure that meets the needs of the sport and its members.

How will we achieve these principles?

2.   By having clear targets and the ability to measure and evaluate delivery performance

2.1  The ASA should set its strategy in consultation with the sport by developing the framework and setting clear targets to help delivery.  The policy level should primarily be the role of the ASA Board, unless delegated authority is given to a ‘Committee’, though committees could also recommend policy on technical land development matters to ASA Board.

2.2  The committees would lead or be part of the development and implementation of an operational plan for its area of work leading to the delivery, which could then be carried out either by paid staff or a mixture of staff and volunteers (i.e. competitions) and or external bodies.

2.3  Committees would cover the areas of Advocacy, Governance and Delivery to varying degrees depending on their specific areas of responsibility, for example health would have more of an advocacy role than a swimming committee.

2.4  The status quo should not continue and that other informal groups should also be take into consideration as part of this review i.e. Swim 21.

2.5  Each committee would be included in the development and implementation of the ASA operational plan and it would be clearly identified how they would contribute to the agreed Performance Indicators.  This would then translate into work programmes at the delivery level.

2.6  It is ASA policy to create job descriptions for the management and membership of all its groups.  Currently the committees can have quite a broad role and there is overlap of discussion.  The committee’s responsibilities/boundaries need to be clearly defined across each topic.

2.7  Each committee would have responsibility for monitoring and evaluating their performance indicators.

Question 2:

Members are invited to comment on the above seven statements regarding the ability to measure and evaluate delivery performance

3.   By having groups with defined roles

The table below provides suggestions of the areas and types of committees that might need to be established.

Lifestyle	Discipline (sport)	Support
Health	Swimming (1)	Facilities (2)
Schools and Learn to Swim (pre 16)	Diving	Medical (3)
Masters and Lifelong participation (post 16)	Disability	Audit and probity
	Synchronised swimming	Legal
	Water Polo	National Club Development (4)
		People Development (5)

(1)   Swimming could include Open Water but there would need to be recognition of the technical differences for competitions. (Which may be through a focus group, see appendix 1)
(2)   Including pool programming, health and safety issues within facilities, which may require a doctor to sit on this group.
(3)   Including medical Health and Safety issues.
(4)   Including the national Swim 21 panel and wider club development support such as welfare.
(5)   Volunteering, issues such as succession planning, roles and effects of the committees and officials etc. The Child Protection WP and Swim 21 National Panel could be a focus groups reporting to People Development

Committees would have varying expectations, and degrees of responsibility in relation to the areas of advocacy, governance and delivery depending on their remit.  The disciplines are seen to have two distinct delivery areas; technical i.e. competitions, conditions and licensing and development i.e. officials, talent pathways and volunteer development that would have a discipline specific roles that would link to the appropriate cross sport support group:

Question 3:

Do Members feel that the suggested areas and types of committees would provide an appropriate structure to deliver the sport’s aim and objectives? If not you are invited to make other appropriate suggestions.

Question 4:

Do members feel the name Committee continues to reflect the modern working practices of the organisation? If not what name could you suggest as a replacement?

4.   By having the right people to deliver the context and the performance

Currently the technical committees membership is made up of representatives of the regions (apart from some which would have two or more independents), though other committees such as the medical committee do not have regional representation.  It is suggested that this is not the best mechanism to carry out the roles and responsibilities but there is recognition that any new structure would need to ensure a robust consultation and communication channel to and from the regions, its membership and external stakeholders/partners. Once the roles of a committee have been identified the skills set of its members should be identified.  Using this person specification we would then look actively within and outside of the sport for people to fill this specification on an open recruitment basis. The term of appointments should be staggered and time limited , so that there is sufficient rotation to bring in new people and ideas as well as to utilise experience effectively

Question 5:

Do members feel that the current committees structure encourages representatives with the appropriate skills to deliver the needs of the sport?

Question 6:

If members were selected on skills rather than regional representation, what communication structures/practices do you think would allow you to ensure your views were heard and that you were kept informed of appropriate information/ issues?

We require volunteers with the correct skills but currently do not provide clear progression pathways or training.  Also some of the rules are inconsistent and provide barriers i.e. ASA Board members can sit on Regional Boards but not Technical Committees.  This does not appear to be best practice or a rationalcommon sense approach; as such technicalities currently could preclude excellent candidates from contributing to committees where they have real expertise.  However, it is recognised that ASA Board members should be able to delineate their management (working groupcommittee) responsibilities from their board responsibilities.  If such a boundary is unclear, ASA Board members should preclude themselves from serving on such committees or working groups.

Question 7:

Do members feel that these rules are inconsistent and should be given further consideration?

5.   Communicate better and carry out our business in a cost and time effective way

Communication is required internally across departments/groups with the Regions and sub regional structures, including clubs.  Also, communication is required externally with partners (existing and new) such as national regional and local levels i.e. County Sports Partnerships (CSPs), School Sports Partnership (SSPs), schools. 

It is important that any representatives have the required experience (or potential) and clear terms of reference are agreed for their communication back to appropriate groups.  It is also recognised that this may be different and tailored to the skills of the person and the needs of the group/people they are communicating with, for example written reports, presentations and attendance at meetings.

Committees could make more use of cost effective IT, for example conference calls, video conferencing and that the timing and number of meetings should be considered, this should be in the context of recognising that this process should not be totally depersonalised.

Question 8:

Would members be comfortable with committees making better use of IT, reducing the need for as many meetings?

6.   Collaboration with other groups, staff and members

This principle links closely to communication and the requirement for cross sport support committees.  It is also important to ensure that the relationships between volunteers and paid staff are an effective partnership within any new structures.

It is suggested that this is through a collaborative approach that considers shared agendas and shared accountability rather than the current traditional model of volunteers/members deciding policy and officers implementing policy.  This would mean appropriate ASA officers having a clear liaison with specific committees and consideration be given to working practices such as officers having a volunteer buddy when they start working for the organisation.

Question 9:

Do Members feel that there is a need to review the working practices of volunteers and paid staff to ensure a more collaborative approach?

7.   Ability to facilitate meaningful debate and quick decisions 

The current Committees are too large to facilitate meaningful debate and quick decision-making and consideration could be given to having a smaller operations/management group that would be underpinned by specific working groups (which may be time limited).  Communication with Regions and Counties could be through wider consultative forums