Q5. Regarding Proposed Motion 3, isn't it better to have a co-opted member without a vote so that they can be more objective and impartial with the advice they are offering to the World Board in their specialist area?
A5. Through Proposed Motion 3, the World Board is proposing a limited and exceptional provision: the ability to co-opt up to one additional World Board member with voting rights, only when a clear gap in skills, experience, or perspective has been identified. This is not a routine practice, nor a move away from elected leadership. It is a targeted tool to strengthen the Board’s effectiveness when it would otherwise be constrained.
However, the World Board strongly believes this Co-opted member should have voting rights. This will enable them to make a stronger contribution as they will share full collective responsibility for decisions, not just offer advice from the perspective of a non-voting member. Furthermore, historically, the co-opted member role has been linked to the Treasurer role, which is one of the most critical roles on the board, not an advisory one.
We do not believe that voting rights would reduce objectivity – in fact, we feel that they would ensure greater accountability. This is because the co-opted member will need to apply their expertise within the same governance framework and set of legal responsibilities as everyone else on the World Board as a charity trustee.
Having a non-voting co-opted member risks creating two tiers of World Board members and would limit full and equitable participation in shared decision-making. We believe that the option to co‑opt one additionalWorld Board member with voting rights enables the Board to respond in an agile, effective way to emerging issues and challenges, whilst still preserving the democratic foundation of the World Board.