Voici un cas publié sur le site de Julie Garland McLellan qui expose un problème bien connu dans plusieurs organisations, notamment dans les OBNL qui ont souvent une gouvernance plus « décontractée ». Comment le CA peut-il obtenir la bonne dose de contrôle/surveillance afin de bien s’acquitter de ses obligations fiduciaires ?

La situation décrite dans ce cas se déroule dans une organisation à but non lucratif (OBNL) qui vient de recruter une excellente directrice générale qui provient d’une OBNL comparable, mais avec une faible gouvernance. La DG avait pris l’habitude de prendre toutes les décisions et d’en aviser le CA après coup !

La gouvernance des OBNL révèle des lacunes qui les rendent souvent plus fragiles et, contrairement au cas présenté ici, ce sont les administrateurs qui ont trop souvent tendance à empiéter sur les tâches de direction.

Dans notre cas, c’est la nouvelle DG qui a outrepassé ses responsabilités en octroyant d’importants contrats sans en discuter avec le conseil. Le président du conseil est outré de la situation, d’autant plus qu’il avait déjà soulevé ces questions avec elle deux fois auparavant.

Même si les décisions prises semblent avantageuses pour l’OBNL, le président doit remettre les pendules à l’heure !

Comment Scott, le président du conseil, doit-il agir afin de rétablir l’équilibre des responsabilités entre le CA et le management et prévenir les activités de cover-up ?

Le cas présente la situation de manière assez simple et explicite ; puis, trois experts se prononcent sur le dilemme que vit Scott.

Je vous invite donc à prendre connaissance de ces avis, en cliquant sur le lien ci-dessous, et me faire part vos commentaires.

Bonne lecture !

 

Un dilemme de gouvernance

 

Our case study this month looks at how a board can establish control without losing a valuable executive. I hope you will enjoy thinking through the key governance issues and developing your own judgement from this dilemma.

Scott is the Chair of a not-for-profit board that has recently recruited a new CEO from a rival organisation.

The CEO is very well qualified and the board are delighted to have her on their executive team. She came from another NFP in the same industry sector. That NFP had a very weak board with directors who were committed to the organisation and its mission but who did not put any effort into establishing good governance. The CEO has become accustomed to making her own decisions and telling the board about them afterwards.

Scott’s board are equally committed to their organisation and mission; they are also diligent and effective directors who have established formal controls that are appropriate for an organisation receiving government and donor funding.

The new CEO has now overstepped her financial and legal delegations for the fourth time. The head of the Audit, Risk and Governance Committee is almost incandescent with rage after hearing about it from the CFO.

Scott is disappointed; last time this happened the board and CEO had a very difficult conversation and she promised not to overstep her delegations again. Less than two months after that event Scott has discovered that she has signed a contract that exceeds her delegated authority in both its length and the quantum of the contract sum.

It is a great contract to have entered into. It will position the organisation for continued growth. The board would have approved had they been asked for permission; but they haven’t been. Even worse, Scott knows that the tender process would have been underway at the time of their last discussion and yet the CEO didn’t disclose the existence of the tender even when they were talking about the need for her to comply with the delegations.

How can Scott re-establish appropriate board control and prevent any more ‘covert operations’?