Is Vertical or Horizontal Separation of Boards the Best Choice? 
When governments set up boards or when national bodies set up state/provincial boards they have to make choices. From their options they decide how to best ensure the mandate, functions and delivery systems meet their intended aims.
This means selecting what functions are to remain centralized and what to disaggregate. This is a difficult choice because subsidiary boards often want to think they are independent from the government or their national bodies.
Therefore, each government or national body has to decide what policies will be centralized, which body will represent what, where specific accountabilities will lie, whether there will be any reporting requirements, and how problem solving will occur.
To Create or Not Create Separate Boards
If the government or the national body decides to create or facilitate the creation of separate bodies at the provincial/state or local levels, many issues can arise. The first is the role the government or national body will retain and how it will ensure it does not encroach on the decision making powers of the provincial or local body. The second issue relates to the type of relationship that will be expected between the bodies. The final major issue is how to maintain separation and yet be interdependent when dealing with stakeholders and partners.
On the one hand, viewing each body as a distinct entity can go too far and board members may begin to take actions which are not harmonious with the expectations of the government or national body. The implementation of the strategic directions set out by the government or national body may not be highly prioritized on the board’s agenda and policies may conflict.
On the other hand, if a board sees itself as a servant of the government or national body, it may not fulfill its role and fail to identify the risks which may be present at its level. Roles may be duplicated and the board may take on an ombudsman role with the government or national body and an antagonistic relationship can develop. The cost of doing business or offering programs could rise due to duplication of effort. A board may rely on the government or national body to take the initiative to bring about change and blame it if things fail.
Delivery of Programs and Services
Integration of service delivery
Whatever the model, it is essential that consideration be given to the program and service delivery systems. Will each entity operate in isolation and have different responsibilities? Is the integration of program and service delivery necessary? If so, what systems will facilitate this integration? It is vital for those represented by the systems to interact with a seamless system. They do not need to have to worry about the boundaries between the systems.
Finances
Fiscal requirements and responsibilities need to be clear. Do the boards have to live within their budgets or will any deficits be forgiven? The government or national body is responsible for defining financial accountability.
How can efficiencies be instituted? The boards can assume this role or the parameters can be imposed. Boards can ensure that all risks are identified and decisions taken which account for the potential impact of the risks the boards have decided to accept.
If Models Conflict
If the government or national body assumes that there is a hierarchical relationship and the boards assume they are independent or at least interdependent, conflict can occur. One body can take a very conservative approach to the implementation of its mandate while the other prefers a more liberal approach.
For example, the government or national body may believe it has to be fiscally responsible and that programs or services are limited. The local board may believe it is critical to meet all the needs presented to it. In this case, the government or national body is limited by their fiscal capacity while the board believes it is an agent or service provider, and as a result, it is focused on the level of satisfaction of those it represents.
There are also situations where a government or national body agrees to set up boards but does not fund them. These boards are expected to raise funds to offer the programs and services desired. This can mean that they are competing with other entities in the same locale.
Finally, there are boards which can only function within the very tight parameters set by the government or national body. These boards cannot modify their mandates, change their lines of business, implement their own policies, or represent any voice other than that of the government or national body which set them up in the beginning.
The Boards’ Role in Seeking Clarity
Only the boards can review their mandates and negotiate changes to suite the local needs. It is the boards that can determine the model that will work effectively in their unique circumstances.
The boards would determine the options which would ensure they leave a positive legacy, delineate the risks associated with each option, and present their arguments to the government or national body. The boards can delineate their values, philosophies and interests and articulate those to the government or national body.
The boards can also define the short- and long-term consequences of conflict between themselves and their legal owners, the governments or the national boards.
Hearing the Boards’ Voices
Board members wear many hats. They simultaneously represent themselves, marginalized individuals, business, town/city councils, vocal persons, special interest groups, and unions just to name a few.
The boards readily identify when what is written conflicts with practice. They know what works and what does not. Therefore, it is vital for them to know the model in operation, how it affects their decision making and accountability responsibilities and the avenues available to them to resolve any issues which are affecting their ability to achieve their mandates.
