Highly investeds in thehe recruitment of salaried associative managers as administrators, we are interested within the cabinet YourVoicein their roles and responsibilities, their links with executive management, and their profiles. With this in mind, wet was with this in mind that we were keen to hear from Monsieur Lebègueone of the personalities with the clearest vision. Interview from Daniel Lebègue on December 12, 2016.

Which is you the main challenge of governance in the associative sector?

A l'Institut Français des Administrateurswe have been working onhe governance of associations 2005, just two years after the creation of the IFA. At a time when in the corporate world, there waswas consensus on the need to professionalize governance, the idea that the same dynamic of professionalization is in so-called public-interest organizations was not self-evident in the early 2000s. At the IFA, considering that there is a real need, we open doors tox managers/administrators of associations and foundations.

Jean-Michel Bloch Lainé sets up set up a working group on the governance of associationsand iit drew up a first report in 2007 which which we and distributed tomajor associations, in various cenacles.

We have also created a club of associationof associations. There were some thirty of them including the Red Cross, Secours Catholiqand various large social and cultural associations. culand cultural associations. We met once a monthto share and analyze our practices. At that time, apart from a few players like yourselves, who provided advice on best practice to those in charge of associations, we realized that associations were largely unaware of what was going on in the world of is elsewhere withinorganizationsomparable from in terms of size and their purpose. Indeed, theommunity managers/administrators discuss about that fontheir organizations, their actions, their advocacy, their strategysand very few, if anye not at all about governance, and especially actual governance and how it works operation, i.e. the composition of the cof the Board of Directors, how it work, and what is interface with executive management.

It is however very familiar at companies. The dynamics of governance has been based on two things: benchmarking benchmarking, namely identifyingof best practices and their dissemination from one company to another. Every time BNP took an initiative governance initiativeinitiative, Société Générale and Société Générale and Crédit Agricole duplicated or adaptaiintinitiative. Another fundamental element: self-regulation, through the code, by bodiess bodiesfor example, for listed companies the Association Française des des Entreprises Privées. When chairmen meet meet at AFEP, they talk about governance and governance issues. Ct didn't exist to the same extent in the associations and and foundations. This club of presidents of large associations is a lieu où l'on échange sur ce qu'onand learn from them in terms of tools and techniques.e tools ande pratiques de gouvernance, the composition of the Con the composition of the Board, on auditing, on relations between the Board and executive management.

Y are major differences between the roles and responsibilities of corporate directors and of association directors?

Essentially, the role, the missions, and thes responsibilitiess of the bonsiders and directors in an association are identical to those in a company. However, thehe reference texts are not the same. The law on commercial companies and the law of 1901 differ, but the four main duties of any board of directors are the same.of missions assigned to any coard ofdministration and and therefore directors are the same:

Firstly, thehe strategic responsibilitytégique du Conseil.

The Board determines and defines the organization's strategic developmentorganization's strategic development implementation. Executive management translatesday-to-day implementation intos. It is the Conseil is on the front line, interfacing with management to build the strategic project, set the course and check that the executive team is applying it, and and implements the strategy.

Secondly, the Board is responsible for the accounts.

It must close the accounts, with regard to the outside world, members, donors, public authorities, and the way in which the financial situation and outlook are communicated.

Thirdly, the Board appoints, evaluates and organize succession at Conseil and general management.

Even though directors are legally appointed at the Annual General Meeting, it is the Board's role to select candidates in advance.. It is also the Bonseil qui nomme, selects, evaluates, sets remuneration and organizes the succession of at least the person who heads the permanent team, the Chief Executive. Who else but the Conseil? We must remember! We'd like to remind you!ins general managers who think it's up to them to recruit their successor. It's the Board's responsibility.

Finally, the Board is the guarantor of internal control and and risk management.

The law states that, for commercial companies, the Board ensures the reliability and soundness of internal control and risk management. With internal control, ensures that the company complies legal and regulatory requirements, as well as the organization's compliance and ethics.of the organization. The Conseil transfers this responsibility to the Executive Board, but controls and that that the system is in placesolid, and robust.

It's the collective and individual responsibility of each director. When we say this à a director, he or she they become aware even shock, because associative commitment is based on volunteering, adherence to valuesvalues, disinterested action. The majority of directors are not remuneratedfor their mandate. Very often, given this disinterested nature, this is summed up as an amateur exercise of the director's mandate. Don't tell thems that they have legallegal responsibilities, because they have chosen and accepted to be a director in an association, in an act of good will. What distinguishes the administrator of an association from l'corporate director, is that for the former, there is always a sharing out that takes place values. Onyone may decide to become an administrator in an association becauseyou want to please someone or respond to a request from someone you know, of course if you are in harmowith the project and its values. Whereas in thecompany, there's a more professional aspect, I have les comskills, theexperience, training, which I put to the company X or Y. It is raree choose the company in which you're recruited. The associative approach is different. The consequence is that we sometimes forget that the missions, responsibilities and role of a director in an association are fundamentally the same as in a company.which is where dysfunction occurs. dysfunctions occur.

What is the division of powers between directors and executive management?

Looking at the loi and case law, forcommercial companies, there is a shift in the law of July 24, 1966. Until 1966, the Council vested with all the powerss to administer the society, i.e. to direct and control. From 1966the law, jurisprudence and and governance codes, gradually drew up a division of roles division of roles between the Cand general management, between the board and the management as the Anglo-Saxons say, a little different where the corporate officer is the managing director - hehe can also beHe can also be Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, but most of the time there is a separation of functions. Lhe chief executive officer the company legally. The Conseil now has a function of guidance and control, and it responsibility responsibility for recruiting, evaluating and defining the mandate, remuneration conditions and, last but not least, to organize the succession of the Chief Executive Officer. That's how things stand in commercial companies.

Dans le monde associatif, on s’est arrêté avant la loi de 1966. C’est le conseil d’administration qui est investi des pleins pouvoirs pour administrer l’association, toute la jurisprudence le dit et le répète. Ainsi d’une certaine manière, le rôle, les missions, les responsabilités du Conseil, du groupe collectif des administrateurs sont plus importantes dans le monde associatif, que dans une entreprise commerciale. Je pense que la grande majorité des administrateurs des associations n’en n’ont pas conscience. Ils sont en première ligne lorsque l’on parle de la gouvernance ou de l’administration d’une association. Le Conseil nomme le directeur, et son rôle se limite à cela dans les entreprises. Dans le monde associatif, on est resté dans le système où le Conseil a tous les pouvoirs. Le niveau d’exigence devrait être ainsi plus élevé pour un administrateur associatif que pour un administrateur d’entreprise. Dans la loi de 1901, quelle que soit la taille des associations, il y a obligatoirement un trésorier qui est désigné au sein du Conseil, et c’est lui qui a la responsabilité des comptes et la responsabilité pénale qui s’en suit. Dans l’entreprise, le Conseil arrête les comptes, mais il ne les établit pas, ils sont définis par le directeur financier sous l’autorité du directeur général. Dans la très grande majorité des associations il y a un « bureau du conseil », c’est une émanation du conseil d’administration, qui se réunit plus régulièrement que le Conseil lui-même. Dans toutes les associations, le bureau prend des décisions qui dans l’entreprise sont sous la responsabilité de l’exécutif, du directeur général ou du comité exécutif, c’est à dire des décisions de gestion, d’administration courante, de nouveaux projets, de l’affectation des moyens financiers, d’un budget à allouer à tel projet… Cet intermédiaire entre le Conseil et l’exécutif qui s’occupe de la gestion courante n’existe pas dans l’entreprise. Autre illustration : lorsqu’une association se retrouve dans une situation financière difficile, et qu’elle doit organiser son redressement ou sa liquidation, la procédure devant le Tribunal de commerce est la même que pour les sociétés. Qui doit alors aller au Tribunal de commerce ? C’est le mandataire social qui organise le redressement ou la liquidation. Et qui est le mandataire social d’une association ? ce n’est pas le directeur général, qui lui fait valoir ses droits de salarié, c’est le président ! Autre exemple, lorsque l’association s’expose à des risques de réputation, vers qui se tourne-t-on ? C’est une fois de plus le président qui est comptable d’un dysfonctionnement, ou plus grave d’une dérive. C’est la même histoire quand des associations, parfois sans avoir pesé tous les risques, mettent en cause, y compris au pénal, tel organisme public, ou telle entreprise. J’en sais quelque chose dans la plainte de Transparency international dans le dossier « des biens mal acquis », l’affaire des détournements de fonds publics par les dirigeants et leurs familles dans trois pays d’Afrique, c’est moi qui l’ai signée ! Qui a signé la plainte, et qui a été assigné en diffamation ? C’est le président d’association que je suis ! Et c’est normal ! Pour engager l’association dans une action et une procédure aussi lourde où on met en cause des dirigeants, politiques, y compris des chefs d’Etat, il faut que quelqu’un en assume la responsabilité. J’ai été relaxé sans trop de débats, mais j’ai quand même été mis en examen pour diffamation. C’est le Conseil qui est en première ligne. Est-ce que tous les présidents d’associations sont bien conscients de tout cela ? 

What do you think about the remuneration of directors?

Lhe major associations and NGOs all pursue a general interest objective, which they display and carry out in the service of the common good. In the news, we hear a lotup about whistle-blowers, à Transparency we say that a whistleblower must act in good faith, without malice, in the general interest andinterest and in a disinterested manner. Ne are not in favor of remunerating whistleblowers.whistleblowers. Personally, I take the same view of the position of administrators and chairmen if you serve the public interest, you do so disinterestedly, without deriving any material or financial benefit from it. But I will nots not conversely prohibition, there may be large NGOs or foundations foundations, where the role of president is so demanding, and and involves such a level of investment, that the Conseil can decidesr to remunerate the Chairman. The principle is: general interestneral interest = disinterested action. Che principle is subject to exceptions.exceptions, it is theons to the Board of Directors and members of the Annual General Meeting. to decide.

Today, in the Association Councils that I know, one of the subjects of debate is what we call in the business world "business moderation". business modelhow to adapt our strategic project to new data, such as new technologiesand financing financing issues. When it comes to funding in the associative world, there have been major upheavals. In some of the major associations I still work with, IFA or ORSE, we do not benefit from public fundingSo we've launched major campaigns to encourage donations, sponsorship and patronage, and This is something we didn't do 2 or 3 years ago.ns, but we have no choice. That's what that us enable us to develop our association, recruit skilled people and invest in new technological tools. We need to change the way we finance our business. has become a central issue. It's at the nithat we need to discuss this issue at Board level.. Many associations organize strategic board seminars, where the evolution of the project is debated.

What do you think for associations of the salaried chairman model?

In my opinion, the Board of Directors should not take the place of the executive body, and I think that if we confuse the roles in day-to-day management, we take risks. A principle of of good governance, in large market economy groups, is to separate to separate I'm in favor of this. We need to clarify everyones roles. The non-executive Chairman non-executive Chairman of the Board the form of a management board. Let organizations decide which system is best.

What do you think about the remuneration of directors?

In my opinion, the Board of Directors should not take the place of the executive body, and I think that if we confuse the roles in day-to-day management, we take risks. A principle of of good governance, in large market economy groups, is to separate to separate I'm in favor of this. We need to clarify everyones roles. The non-executive Chairman non-executive Chairman of the Board the form of a management board. Let organizations decide which system is best.