To repeat from my previous post:
I think that there are many an outsider who would love their community to have the foundation of resources that we appear to have at our fingertips.I doff my cap to the entire Board for their turnaround of the LRA management debacle of some two years back.
There is no doubt that the LRA is now where it should have been some four years ago... ready to launch some innovative, world-class, visionary initiatives to make Lonehill a GREAT community.
The concerns for governance issues that I raised in - Lonehill: Should We Be IMPRESSED? - do not seem to have concerned anyone else at that LRA AGM meeting.
It would seem, therefore, that our original Code of Ethics proposed in our early days is no longer valid, leaving whoever operates in unison on the LRA Board to effectively do what they like with our funds in their assessment of the LRA vision and Company's Act regulations... and we'll only find out what they did at the next presentation of financials.
Personally, I think that this is dangerously short-sighted, because by then the horse can well and truly have bolted. But hey, I'm clearly a minority on this.
I'm just always aware of what happened in this community the previous times that the boiling frog syndrome was allowed to take effect in Lonehill... ;-)
Besides, it becomes very difficult to nigh impossible for the Chair to claim moral authority over those who do not make their VOLUNTARY contributions when the Chair has a vested interest in the community cookie jar.
People will never tell the Chair direct to his/her face, too few like to stand up and be seen to rock the boat... but inside they will be sniggering 'ja, boet' as they keep their funds away from feeding the cookie jar.... much to the unknowing frustration of the Chair who naturally chides his/her community for not volunteering their contributions.
It is a downward-spiralling cycle with the potential to collapse whatever the initiative if not addressed.
Something like the Catholic Popes selling of indulgences from the 12th to 16th centuries eroded the moral authority of the Catholic Church. Martin Luther showed that intelligent people will always seek reform to ensure that moral authority maintains its rightful place.
Most often those with vested interests cannot see or acknowledge their vested interest position as compromising their moral authority and/or integrity.
Just get into a debate with Robert Mugabe on the subject.. ;-)
I believe that the Chair of a voluntary community initiative like Lonehill's... and the position of a paid GM function... should be totally separated.
To further repeat from my previous post:
Don't have a problem with anyone being remunerated for a job well done, as long as, and especially in a community initiative context, such intentions are openly pre-declared to the community for stakeholder discussion and approval, and the position is openly offered/advertised as an equal-opportunity to anyone in the community wishing to tender for it.
It has always been my view that individuals with transparently declared vested interests and/or requiring remuneration/incentivisation (a slice of the pie) will be critical to making a significant difference and building a much bigger pie for the benefit of all in a community.
So, that said, let's look to what can be done to move our community initiative from Good... to GREAT.
Actually, they are very SIMPLE things.
1. Improve Communication by 1000%.
First, it can take as little as just 5 minutes to set-up a top-notch social network website linking all Lonehillers in an informative manner.
Then, let's face it, the copy and layout in our emails, website (non-existent right now) and on our notice-boards can be upgraded to make a massive difference in the message conveyed.
Compelling copy can make all the difference in stimulating interaction with your audience.
This simple statement below (with link) attracted one of the biggest ever responses from my own database of like-minded business-owners, you're welcome to follow through to see how the process works - it's free - and the 3 Simple Steps can be applied in our own community initiative:
Do you know that just 3 Simple Steps in business have been used to build some of the greatest fortunes in history. If you want them, I'll send you the link to the formula (at no cost to you) just click on the link below:
YES Please Trevor, send me the no-cost link to the 3 Simple Steps to building a fortune in MY business
Content in our newsletters can be much more relevant and delivery can be vastly improved. I've never yet received a newsletter directly.
Was also asked what the Lonehill Objectors meeting was about that was apparently held at the Lonehill Shopping Mall on Wed. 20th August. Never heard about it. Surely this is important community news that the LRA should be circulating to all community members as a priority?
2. Improve Collaboration with community members who have the proven skills. Leadership can make a concerted effort to bring all local community players into the fold to make their contribution in their own select ways.
3. Improve Community Involvement and Participation. This community initiative launched with massive community involvement, meetings of 800 to a 1000 people in community halls out of 3300 households. Anything from 100 to 300 people involved in bringing the initiative to life.
Latest LRA AGM 2008 figures show an attendance of just 125 people from over 6000 households - only 68 being registered members. Here's a BIG clue to a key problem to be addressed.
There are simple, proven methods to apply to work out how to increase these numbers once again.
Key to this is to openly encourage participation in ALL things community from bottom-up. That includes an open exposure of the facts, statistics, problems and challenges facing the LRA Board. A problem shared is a problem halved.
Top-down autocratic power and control of a few on a board directorate only results in community apathy.
This is an OPEN COMMUNITY initiative not an exclusive board initiative.
This has been the single biggest failing of board members in our recent past and the biggest failing of ' autocratic leadership' in most failed community initiatives.
Go all out to involve the community in EVERY aspect, fact and statistic of the initiative, warts and all, and the community will once again believe that it is THEIR project to enthusiastically participate in.
Above all, give RECOGNITION to those who make (and have made) significant inputs. Everybody, but EVERYBODY, loves recognition... and many contributors in future will be attracted in numbers in direct proportion to the recognition accorded to those going before them.
Leadership should not be coy about this out of some mistaken sense of humility/modesty. It's not about YOU, the current leadership. It can be the simple difference between an organisation moving from Good... to GREAT. It is that important.
4. Encourage Questions. Give Specific Answers. Provide The Facts.
It seems from the minutes that not a single one of the questions posed in - Lonehill: Should We Be IMPRESSED? - was asked or addressed by anyone at the LRA AGM 2008. A pity... for both our community and our leaders.
Do we really know that anyone really has an idea of what's truly going on in our community if we don't know the facts?
LRA leadership should openly encourage pertinent questions and deliver specific answers with factual honesty. Emotion charged perceptions and assumptions should no longer cut the mustard. Just give us the facts.
These actions encompass the principles displayed in the two simple qualities of Top Leaders identified by Brian Tracy.
excerpt:
'The motivational leader insists on seeing things exactly as they are and encourages others to look at life the same way. As a motivational leader, you get the facts, whatever they are.
'You deal with people honestly and tell them exactly what you perceive to be the truth. This doesn't mean that you will always be right, but you will always be expressing the truth in the best way you know how.'
LRA leadership skills should be honestly evaluated and sharpened to encourage our community's belief in OUR VISION - help 'em see it (read the link). We deserve that level of personal and collective responsibility from our leaders
LRA leadership should openly review their current ethics code and open the process up to accepting community input - read: A Leader Has High Ethics By Sheila Murray Bethel, PhD.
Simple stuff. It's really no big deal to move from Good... to GREAT.
Even the doggie-poop in the park problem can be converted into a major win for the LRA, doggie-lovers, and non-doggie park-lovers, with some very simple ideas that can be brainstormed and applied. No one need be censured and no threatening posture needs come from anyone on the LRA.
No big deal.
It's about strategy, proven know-how, innovation, commitment and delivery.
This intellectual property exists in bunches within many circles in Lonehill. These circles can be brought in to work together with those of like-mind... or on their own to deliver on specific community objectives. The LRA Board's role must surely be to unleash the people with these skills for the benefit of the entire community.
The clues to doing this are all consistently stated in the posts archived on this forum.
Regards
Trevor Nel - Lonehill Resident
011 - 705-2790
1 comment:
Hi Trevor,
(This extract modified)
You are NOT the ONLY one who is VERY concerned about this new turn of financial events within the LRA Directorate.
It sounds that their decision was once again ratified at the AGM by a complacent, minority attendance!
This Board appears also to be heading the same way of the old regime -- “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely!”
It is ironical that you should mention Mugabe in this context as I have always felt this when attending the LRA meetings!
It is definitely NOT a meeting held by the people for the people!
Is THIS why the majority of Lonehillers will NOT attend?
Now that the Chairman (or is he the GM) has a very substantial remuneration which not one “Member, Stakeholder or Shareholder” questioned, I wonder if he will recuse himself (I suggest he looks up the definition in the dictionary) from EVERY meeting where financial or vested interest decisions are being discussed? I suspect not, as it would be impractical and therein lies the rub!
So is this new financial (accepted) proposal not the thin end of the wedge?
The Directors’ and Chairman’s position was ALWAYS a voluntary one ever since we started the “new” LRA but it seems people have very short memories! I feel this precedent has far-reaching ramifications than the present Board of Directors can imagine!
When will the Directors demand to be remunerated?
Should this position not be put out to tender in future?
I too have no gripe with any Lonehiller earning a remuneration from the “security initiative which a group of dedicated and passionate Lonehillers (like you and me) started” and have now been excluded from taking the original “vision” forward just because we “ask questions” and “demand TOTAL transparency”?
WHY? “Is there a fear that WE may rock this comfortable boat that they now find themselves sailing in?”
Did you note how subtly (yet suspiciously) my “questions” were handled? Just a small mention of my name in the minutes?
Why not publicly display or table these VERY meaningful questions -- with the LRA’s answers?
WHY are we NOT voting on this?
The reason I placed “Member, Stakeholder or Shareholder” in brackets is because this has NEVER satisfactorily been resolved.
WHAT IS THE FINANCIAL STAKE (IF ANY) OF THE “MEMBERS, STAKEHOLDERS OR SHAREHOLDERS” OF THOSE WHO ORIGINALLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE WORKING CAPITAL USED TO BUY THE NOW VERY SUBSTANTIAL ASSET I.E.THE LONEHILL TOWN HALL (it must be worth close to or exceeds R4-million by now)? Should they not be issued with debentures? Is this asset being utilised entirely for the good of ONLY Lonehillers?
What WILL happen to this asset when one day, inevitably, the LRA is disbanded?
WHO GETS THAT MONEY????
I for one, am NOT satisfied that this question HAS been satisfactorily answered as so glibly mentioned in the minutes!
I STILL claim: “The Emperor has no clothes on!”
Yours sincerely,
George L. Joubert
Post a Comment