VI.E. House Level Management Working Group

From BSC Policy
Jump to: navigation, search

Description

The BSC currently suffers from lack of clarity over the roles and responsibilities of student managers, leading to confusion over sectors of authority and accountability between Central and House-level bodies. This policy creates a working group to investigate BSC manager training procedures, sources of ambiguity related to the expectations of and for student managers, as well as methods through which managers are supported and monitored by the Central Level.


Stakeholders

BSC Board, Central Office, House Manager Teams, General Membership


Goals

To gather input from applicable stakeholders (student managers from small, mid, and large-size houses, as well as Central Level staff and student leaders) to evaluate the effectiveness of current BSC practices with regards to management training, oversight, and support. To identify areas of weakness therein. To propose strategies of improvement.

• In particular, to address questions such as the following, and to identify solutions to consistent concerns raised:
• How are student managers currently trained? Do various stakeholders feel this is adequate?
• Are student managers clear about the expectations which the Central Level has for them?
• Are house memberships informed about the expectations which the Central Level has for managers?
• Do student managers feel they are supported by the Central Level?
• Do house memberships feel their managers are supported by the Central Level?
• Do house memberships feel supported by the Central Level?
• How can we ensure that all parties are clear on the roles and responsibilities at various levels of management, and do all parties understand the proper mechanisms through which to voice concerns and look for support?
• Do student managers feel they are supported by or in good communication with managers at other,
• similarly-sized houses?
• How do the management structures (and levels of compensation) of similarly-sized houses compare?
• To what extent is manager compensation drawn from central level vs. house accounts? Does compensation have an impact on perception of management positions?
• How do house memberships and student managers feel about routes of communication between the houses and the Central Level? What are our strengths? Ideas of improvement?
• What changes in Board committee structure would strengthen the formal influence that House Managers wield in informing Board policy and decision-making? Should house-manager bodies like MaintCom have a more defined role in influencing the Board? How do we strengthen the influence that House Managers and House Presidents have?


Composition: The participants of this working group will be drawn from all levels of BSC organization. It will consist of one Cabinet member-at-large, one Board rep, one House Manager, one House President, and three members at large. The Cabinet member at large will be elected by Cabinet, the Board rep will be elected by Board, the House Manager rep will be elected by the House Manager Council, and the House President rep will be elected by the Presidents Council. The chair and three members at large will be selected by the committee. The group will work along with Central Level student leadership (Cabinet/Board) for policy and procedure-related advice and support. This group will work with the Executive Director and Operations Manager as needed to ensure consistent flow of information while maintaining a bottom-up movement for evaluation and change.

[Board Approved 10/9/2009]