Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Reorganization Proposal Revised September 16, 2008 Executive Summary

Transcription

1 Background: Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) Reorganization Proposal Revised September 16, 2008 Executive Summary Starting in August, 2006, the Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP) began a process to explore reorganizing to face the future challenges of the restoration effort and accelerate implementation by embracing an adaptive management approach. In studying options for reorganizing, the CBP discovered that managing the complexities of the Chesapeake Bay would require an organizational structure that would support decision-making in the face of uncertainty. This new organization structure is designed around the principles of adaptive management. Adaptive management is defined as the integration of design, management, and monitoring to systematically test assumptions in order to adapt and learn. 1 This new organization structure is designed to respond with flexibility to new science, monitoring and modeling trends, and the ever changing political and population changes which directly impact efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. The process of reorganizing over the last two years has been iterative. Initially, many CBP stakeholders believed that reorganization would only require a reduction in the number of committees and streamlining the organizational structure. After studying the organization and issues, conducting over 100 interviews and surveys, and hosting half a dozen meetings with the PSC appointed ad-hoc Reorganization Workgroup and Subcommittee Chairs, the CBP concluded that more was needed than merely rearranging boxes and streamlining the committee structure. The CBP realized that reorganizing presented an opportunity to ask fundamental questions about how the CBP operated and made decisions. Staff working on the reorganization discovered that the CBP has no formal operating procedures. Therefore, in many ways, the work of reorganizing required the CBP to start from the beginning to define what the CBP does and then design an effective organization structure. In early 2008, the reorganization effort converged with the creation and adoption of the Chesapeake Action Plan (CAP). CBP leaders recognized an opportunity to merge the goals of the CAP with the goals of the reorganization as both were fundamentally based on the principles of Adaptive Management.

2 After months of refining the reorganization structure, the CBP put forth an option to the PSC in June, 2008 that was based on an adaptive management approach and integrated the goals of the CAP. At this meeting, Secretary Griffen asked Frank Dawson and Diana Esher, Co- Chairs of the PSC adhoc Reorganization Workgroup, to provide more information to the PSC on how the new structure would operate and the roles and membership of each part of the organizational chart. This document is the response to that request. The CBP acknowledges that reorganizing will be an ongoing process as recommended by the adaptive management approach. The new structure will be evaluated one year after implementation to assess success and determine where the structure needs to change and adapt. Workgroup members have asked us to create operating procedures for each of the individual structures in the organization so that all stakeholders know who is making decisions, how decisions will be made, who is accountable, and explicitly have in place the mechanism for evaluating the new Management Board, CAP Goal Implementation Teams, and Action Teams. Workgroup members and Subcommittee Chairs endorse the organizational structure presented in this document and understand that this will not be a static organizational structure but one that will require continued evaluation and adaptation. They also cautioned us to remember that much of the success of a reorganized CBP will depend on leadership and the ability to make difficult decisions. II. Process: A. Analysis of current structure Two major reviews of the current CBP structure have been undertaken in preparation of Reorganization. First, through the CBP partnership, a series of over fifty (50) stakeholder interviews and approximately sixty (60) surveys were completed from August through October, 2006 to prepare for initial planning of the Reorganization. Key stakeholders interviewed and surveyed include: state agencies, academics, non-profits, federal partners, subcommittee and advisory committees, contractors, and others.

3 A parallel effort was led by the Keith Campbell Foundation. The Foundation convened a series of meetings from September 2006 to January The meeting participants shared a wealth of Bay-related experience and knowledge in policy, science, communications, advocacy, philanthropy, and all levels of government. The result was a report which outlined operating principles and offered concepts for a framework aimed at accelerating implementation of Bay restoration. From these two efforts, the CBP concluded that the Reorganization should: simplify the organization structure adopt adaptive management as a guiding principle of the CBP to enhance the agility and nimbleness of the organization and become more efficient and flexible provide more accountability better focus efforts on critical implementation priorities emphasize short term, action oriented, outcome driven interdisciplinary teams to address critical issues improve access and involvement of a broader spectrum of interests B. Process used for managing reorganization These two major efforts to evaluate the existing CBP structure and develop new options came together at the May 23, 2007 Principals Staff Committee (PSC) meeting. The PSC Chair, Secretary Griffin, directed the formation of an adhoc Reorganization Workgroup to develop new organizational options for the Chesapeake Bay Program and consider previous efforts and to propose a final recommendation for change. A group comprised of federal and state partners, advisory committee chairs, and other stakeholders met three times to review reorganization options and procedures. The Workgroup recommended a reorganization option during its October 5, 2007 meeting. This reorganization proposal was then presented and discussed with the CBP Director, state partners, Chesapeake Bay Commission, the Citizen s Advisory Committee (CAC), Local Government Advisory Committee, and the Implementation Committee. The reorganization proposal was then modified based on the input from all of these stakeholders. Further refinement and change was made to the structure over the next few months culminating with integrating the goals of the CAP. The adhoc Reorganization Workgroup put forth this option to the PSC in June, At that meeting, the PSC asked

4 the adhoc Reorganization Workgroup to provide more detail on how the new structure would operate and delineate the roles and membership of each individual structure. The adhoc Reorganization Workgroup created a document that describes the functions, roles, and membership of each box in the organization and shared that document with the Reorganization workgroup and Subcommittee Chairs in August and early September, The reorganization structure was refined and improved based on the feedback from these two groups. The CBP organization chart and roles, functions, and membership are now finalized and will be presented to the PSC at their September 22, 2008 meeting for approval. III. Decision-Making in the new Chesapeake Bay Program structure: Since the inception of the CBP partnership, special effort has been made to achieve consensus on issues, rather than deciding by a formal vote, thus strengthening support for the Program's decisions. In the proposed reorganization, CBP partners will continue to strive for consensus. In the event that consensus cannot be achieved, the Chair will request a vote on the issue at hand. The results of this vote will help inform decision making. The Management Board may also select to present intransigent issues to the PSC for decision-making. More detail will be provided in the Operating Procedures for the CBP Management Board. The Subcommittee Chairs requested clarification about where decision making will be made in the CBP organization structure. In the proposed structure, the Management Board will have substantial responsibility for decision making regarding strategic priorities and the allocation of resources. Other organizational units would also have decision making authority within their defined responsibilities. IV. Leadership: Many of the PSC adhoc Workgroup members and Subcommittee Chairs have asserted during the reorganization planning that the most important aspect is the leadership of each of the structural groups and the full participation and commitment of resources by members. V. How is the structure different? The new CBP organization is organized around the principles of adaptive management. The major changes include:

5 A. The EC in the new CBP organization structure acknowledges the important role of the Headwater States and other core Federal agencies. All three Headwater States have been added to the EC. Other federal agencies will be represented at the EC level once they have been identified. B. The PSC in the new CBP organization structure clarifies decision-making and adds the headwater states and other core federal agencies. C. The Advisory Committees role has been clarified in the new organizational structure. Two of the Advisory Committees, Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) are clearly recognized as full voting members of the Management Board. The Science and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) will attend meetings of the Board but will not vote in order to preserve its independent role. D. The Management Board replaces the Implementation Committee (IC) with more robust operating procedures and clarified roles. New stakeholders have been added to the Management Board, including agricultural, development, waste water treatment facilities, private funding network, non-government organization, and biological/ecological viewpoint representatives from the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Other additional stakeholders include the headwater states and core federal agencies. E. Eight subcommittees with over a dozen workgroups have been replaced by six CAP Goal Implementation Teams that focus on implementing specific actions and strategies outlined in the CAP. F. Action Teams have been created to fill the need in the CBP for short-term, outcome driven teams that will address critical and timely issues. The Action Teams were created in the context of adaptive management and will promote the CBP s flexibility to adapt to changing science and trends.