Date and Time of Training: Tuesday, July 24 and Thursday, August 16, 2012 / 5:30pm-8:30pm
Training Topic: Youth-Led Initiatives and Governance: Responsible Decision Making
Location: CSI Annex and United Way of Greater Toronto Headquarters
Facilitator(s): Christa Romaldi
The training on Youth-Led Initiatives and Governance, specifically Responsible Decision Making, focused on the key role, responsibilities, and structure of a governing body. We spent a great deal of time discussing the fiduciary role of a board—or being legally responsible for the well-being of an organization—and the duty of care and loyalty that come with that role. We also discussed the fundamental functions of a board and practices that allow the board to serve those functions effectively.
The greatest challenge with governing bodies is that, aside from the legal requirements of a board, generally there is no ‘right’ and no ‘wrong’ way of doing things. Governing bodies are made up of unique and diverse individuals who each bring their own style and perspective to the table. It’s still important, however, for board members to understand their duties and functions before jumping in. Try bringing this training to your next board meeting!
Our hope is that this training will provide volunteers, staff, and governing body members with the information necessary to understand their roles and responsibilities. We also hope this will give senior staff members who work with boards the confidence they need to ask board members to commit and participate actively in the work of the organization.
We hope to have a follow-up session in the following program year to address the changes in governance brought about by changes in provincial nonprofit incorporation legislation.
Participants said that the material was presented in an engaging manner; it was clear and concise. The content was useful, in particular the handouts, which can be brought back to the organizations and shared. Participants appreciated the energy put into the training.
The second training was smaller, which allowed for deeper discussion and more time to ask questions.
Participants felt that the first training required more time for dialogue; since we addressed three topics, it should have been 3 trainings. That being said, there was too much to cover for one training, hence our need for a second part.