3.3.3.3 Towards a structured process for the participation of the mentally disabled in the Koispe governance structure

Adam notes the absence of a structured process in the organisational functioning of the Koispe to promote the participation of Type A members in the governance of the organisation.1 Hence, according to her, Type A members are not determined and empowered to participate in the governance. The realisation of participatory governance in KAE, albeit fragmented for the mentally disabled, is understood to contain elements that could be categorised under the following taxonomy:

The empirical research carried out, demonstrated that Type A members were able to participate either at the general meeting and/or at the processes of the management board. The right is stipulated in legislation and in the SoA of the Koispe. As such, it constitutes a formal means of participation, which takes place regularly. Annually, an average of 50 Type A members participated at the general meeting of KAE. The general meeting was the highest governing body of KAE, which meets ordinarily or extraordinarily whenever the management board calls it. Whether ordinary or not, the general meeting had to produce decisions. In the meeting, Type A members exercised their voting rights on the basis of the ‘one man, one vote’ rule. If necessary, at the general meeting, voting was formally organised with polls, screens, and ballots. There was also an election committee to supervise the process.

In the process of the general meeting, there was great conformity in decision- making. In essence, the processes comprised the setting of goals without controversies, which only occurred concerning the way the goals should be implemented with regards, in particular, to solutions for complex problems. A Type A member mentioned that ‘although the general meeting comprises members who come to attend the accounting sessions, the process is inefficient’ (3.3 interview, 16 October 2014). He also stated that:

Once a year, prior to the regular meetings of the general meeting, electronic invitations were sent to all members including information regarding the balance sheet of the KAE, the net income of the cooperative, the profits and the losses. During the general meeting sessions, all members had an equal right to declare freely their opinion regarding current management systems and the organisational methods used by the administration.

However, the structure of the management board was mixed. KAE’s management board comprised seven members. Five members were elected and appointed representatives of Type B and C members. Two members were elected by Type A members. One respondent says ‘Type A members are not just asked (to participate), they are involved in the decision-making process. They become decision-makers’ (1.1 interview, 16 October 2014).

Research demonstrated that Type A members participated in the governance of the organisation in a direct or indirect, but more informal, manner. For instance, regular information regarding the KAE’s affairs was provided to KAE’s members and stakeholders on the social enterprise’s website, which is accessible to everyone. Additionally, KAE regularly circulated newsletters to its members and employees. A Type A member who was not an elected representative of the management board, reported a common practice of informal but direct participation during the management board sessions. He explained that:

The informal and indirect participation of Type A members in the decision- making was demonstrated in the inner workings of a counselling committee. Although the competences of such a committee were not found in the SoA of KAE, its responsibility was to meet employees and trainees biweekly and to support them psychologically, while documenting their problems and claims that were eventually conveyed to the administration (i.e. bottom-up approach of conveying Type A members’ claims). Where employees had individual requests, they could arrange individual appointments with the counselling committee. Accordingly, the counselling committee and the administration met biweekly.

In this way, the counselling committee operated as an internal confidential grievance mechanism for the organisation. For instance, one respondent mentioned that ‘sometimes the employees seek something that they would not say to their supervisors or to their instructors. There is more confidentiality between the counselling committee and the mental health recipients’ (1.1 interview, 16 October 2014).

Additionally, daily operations and the implementation of KAE’s managerial decisions required actions from Type A members-employees concerning changes in the activities that they already carried out. Those actions were further developed by Type A member-employees into organised informal processes. For instance, managerial decisions were communicated informally by the supervisors to every operational section (i.e. top-down approach of conveying the content of decisions to Type A members). In practice, the supervisors communicated or implemented the decisions made by the management and the administration. For instance, one respondent mentioned that:

On the occasion that an issue affects collectively the employees and Type A members, KAE organises informal seminars. A respondent mentioned in that respect: