DIRECTOR TRAINING AND QUALIFICATIONS DICO S EXPECTATIONS, ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

Similar documents
Contractor. Management

EXHIBIT A THE TIMKEN COMPANY BOARD OF DIRECTORS GENERAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

Consultation process: Career-related Programme

I. Student Evaluations (end-of-course evaluation form; a copy of the form is provided in Appendix A on page 58.)

Qualities of Leadership Excellence at Sodexo. Competencies of an Operations Vice President

Request for Proposal. Study: Site Plan Approval Process in Ontario. This Request for Proposal Closes at 16:00:00 EST on Monday, November 5, 2012

1. GOVERNANCE AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE TERMS OF

INVITAE CORPORATION CORPORATE GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES

GUIDELINES FOR ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW For self-studies due to the Office of the Provost on October 1, 2015 CENTERS

Guidance Note: Corporate Governance - Board of Directors. March Ce document est aussi disponible en français.

Federal Bureau of Investigation s Integrity and Compliance Program

KINDER MORGAN MANAGEMENT, LLC (the "Company") CHARTER OF THE NOMINATING AND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

C. HIRING PROCESS FOR FACULTY AND ACADEMIC PROFESSIONALS

Diploma of Business Administration BSB50415

Issue No. 02 BOBS May, 2008 Effective Date: UNCONTROLLED WHEN DOWNLOADED/PRINTED

Terms of Reference for LEAP II Final Evaluation Consultant

AAOIFI Shari a Standards: Translation from Arabic to French Request for Proposal (RFP)

A&CS Assurance Review. Accounting Policy Division Rule Making Participation in Standard Setting. Report

CHARTER OF SUCCESSION PLANNING COMMITTEE

UIC. Civil Service Jobs: Selection and Placement at UIC. UIC Human Resources UIC Human Resources. January 14, Kim Morris Lee/ Eva Mecic

BOARD MANUAL. DATE: May 25, 2011 REVISED/REVIEWED: November 26, 2014

Corporate Governance Guidelines. Apartment Investment and Management Company. Adopted as of March 8, 2004 (last updated July 2010)

RALLY SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT CORP. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES

Review Process for University Departments and Academic Partnerships

Government leadership in assuring better quality healthcare in South Africa: policy into practice

Audit of the Management of Projects within Employment and Social Development Canada

WHEELOCK COLLEGE FACULTY DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION PROGRAM

FORTRESS TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTORS LLC CORPORATE GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES MAY 11, 2015

1. INTRODUCTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN SQUAMISH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 2014 STRATEGY WORKSHOP BUILDING THE STRATEGIC PLAN

Accreditation of qualifications for registration as an oral health practitioner

Relationship Manager (Banking) Assessment Plan

BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION. Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee Mandate

Complex Proposal Development Best Practices

Guidelines on best practice in recruitment and selection

LSE Internal Audit procedures (to be read in conjunction with the attached flowchart)

GUIDELINES: III.B.iii. Ogeechee Technical College Interviewing and Hiring Adjunct Faculty

TROY UNIVERSITY Sorrell College of Business Response to ACBSP Evaluation Feedback Report November 11, 2008

International Agreements

Guidelines for Preparing New Graduate Program Proposals

Audit Committee Terms of Reference

THE OFFICE OF THE INTERNAL AUDITOR STATUS UPDATE MARCH 11, 2014

Release: 2. SIR30412 Certificate III in Business to Business Sales

Prairie View A&M University Office of Equal Employment Opportunity EEO Form-3, May 21, /2009; SACS-001-EEO-2009

Risk management systems of responsible entities: Further proposals

Risk Committee Charter

THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY AUDIT COMMITTEE CHARTER (Last amended February 21, 2013)

The Framework for Quality Assurance

Principal Performance Review

MEMORANDUM. Recommendation: Recommend that the full Board adopt changes to the Board Performance Review Policy.

QUALITY ASSURANCE HANDBOOK. Policies, procedures and resources to guide undergraduate and graduate program development and improvement at UOIT

BSBMKG609 Develop a marketing plan

Gladstone Ports Corporation Limited

STRATEGIC WEBSITE INTEGRATION FACELIFT TEAM

Release: 2. SIR40212 Certificate IV in Retail Management

Solvency II Own risk and solvency assessment (ORSA)

Job Grade: Band 5. Job Reference Number:

DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL INC. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES/POLICIES

Module 17: EMS Audits

ADMINISTRATOR PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL GUIDELINES

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS SERVICES FOR

THE GAP, INC. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES (As of February 1, 2015)

Small Business Mentoring Pro Mentoring Pr gra ogr m

Conducting A Communications Audit

Nurse Practitioner Mentor Guideline NPAC-NZ

APPRAISAL POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR SUPPORT STAFF 1

Internal Audit Quality Assessment. Presented To: World Intellectual Property Organization

Committee Approved: January 6, 2014 FNC Board Approved: January 8, Compensation and Governance Committee Charter

LOOKSMART, LTD. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE GUIDELINES

A Delaware corporation (the Company ) Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Charter Amended as of January 21, 2015

How To Write Ansi/Eia Evm System Acceptanceance Guide

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC. CORPORATE GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICES

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AUDIT REPORTS 2012

Qualities of Leadership Excellence at Sodexo. Competencies of a District Manager

1. All vacant posts, regardless of source of funding, must be advertised, except:

EQR PROTOCOL 1: ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH MEDICAID MANAGED CARE REGULATIONS

The Healthcare Leadership Model Appraisal Hub and 360 report. Facilitator user guide

Intelligent Buildings and Big Data CABA Intelligent & Integrated Buildings Council (IIBC) Landmark Research 2014

3 rd Review Meeting Convention on Nuclear Safety First Anniversary Report Status of Actions on Canada April 2006

Report to Trust Board Executive summary

Australian Social Work Education and Accreditation Standards (ASWEAS) Guideline 1.6: Guidance on new programs

February 15, I. SUBJECT: CalPERS Business Plan Update. III. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of change to the CalPERS Business Plan.

NCR Corporation Board of Directors Corporate Governance Guidelines Revised January 20, 2016

SAN LUIS OBISPO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT San Luis Obispo, California DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TO CREDIT UNIONS DATE: June 10, 1998

National Disability Authority Resource Allocation Feasibility Study Final Report January 2013

A MATTER MANAGEMENT/e-BILLING BUYING GUIDE

Enterprise Risk Management Panel Discussion

Computer Science Graduate Degree Requirements

STAFF REPORT INFORMATION ONLY

KING III COMPLIANCE REGISTER 2015

Background. Requirements

The Feasibility Study Process. Developed by Tim O Connell

PSI Leadership Services

Internship, Practicum, & Field Experience Higher Education Administration & Student Personnel (HIED/EDAD 6/76492)

John Keel, CPA State Auditor. An Audit Report on Inspections of Compounding Pharmacies at the Board of Pharmacy. August 2015 Report No.

Significant Revisions to OMB Circular A-127. Section Revision to A-127 Purpose of Revision Section 1. Purpose

PERFORMANCE REVIEW & DEVELOPMENT PLAN GUIDE Administrative Staff & Managers and Technicians & Academic Counsellors

REQUESTS FOR PROPOSAL RFP TGF Title: Professional Services for the Implementation of the Board Governance Performance Assessment Framework

Computer Science Graduate Degree Requirements

Transcription:

SECTOR NOTICE November 2012 DIRECTOR TRAINING AND QUALIFICATIONS DICO S EXPECTATIONS, ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES Purpose DICO has received several requests from institutions for additional information surrounding director training and qualifications. This Sector Notice clarifies DICO s expectations and assessment methodology regarding director training and qualifications requirements. It also provides a summary of implementation strategies being implemented by some institutions. Background The requirements in DICO s Guidance Notes: Director Training and Qualifications for Class 1 and Class 2 institutions (the Guidance Notes ) became effective for all directors elected or appointed on or after July 1, 2012. The Guidance Notes require institutions to develop and enhance sound governance practices through ongoing director development within a common framework. This framework incorporates a set of nine core competencies and competency levels that are established by each institution based on its size and complexity, subject to minimum requirements set out in DICO s Guidance Notes. DICO has held a series of webinars to review the requirements and provide an opportunity to address any issues and concerns. With the help of an industry working group, a number of sample tools were developed and published including a policy development guide, director self-assessment tool and director candidate information materials. DICO also published Application Guides that provide typical attributes of competency levels. Recordings of the webinars, the Guidance Notes, Application Guides and sample tools are available on our website at www.dico.com. Page 1

DICO s Expectations DICO expects institutions to be actively engaged in activities relating to director training and qualification requirements. Institutions are encouraged to develop an implementation plan identifying the steps, timelines and resources necessary to ensure that an appropriate initial framework and processes will be in place to meet director development objectives. A comprehensive implementation plan would address: policy development and approval o competencies, competency levels, time frames, assessment criteria, responsibilities director competency assessment process o methodologies, tools, testing, validation, frequency director self assessment and development requirements o competency gaps, training and development needs director competency matrix o director competency levels, competency requirements, time frames candidate information o competencies, commitment/undertaking for development and training, time frames review/revisions to framework, policy, processes, and self-assessment based on experience DICO s Assessment Methodology DICO recognizes this is a new initiative for many institutions that will take time to develop and fully implement, and will require on-going refinement and modifications to reflect experience and practices. PHASE 1 (2012-13) Initially, examiners will be looking to confirm that the institution has identified the necessary activities and priorities for effectively implementing the requirements. Larger institutions are expected to be further along in the process. DICO will review the institution s: implementation plan, activities and timelines policy or status of policy development adequacy and approach outlined in the policy progress on developing and implementing supporting processes DICO will not: Evaluate or assess the competencies of individual directors; Review results of any individual director self-assessments; and Test an individual director s knowledge or competency level Page 2

PHASE 2 (2014 onwards) As part of its on-going risk assessment and examination process, examiners will be looking at the effectiveness of the institution s director training and qualifications program. This will include a more comprehensive review of the process and practices in place and may include interviews with the Chair and other directors as appropriate. The interviews will be designed to ascertain the director s viewpoint of the institution s development and training policy and practices, and whether these have been effective in improving the director s skills and capabilities in the required competencies. DICO will assess: The adequacy of competency criteria and requirements Director assessment considerations, tools and practices Competency validation requirements and practices Director development plans and initiatives Board competency assessment processes and overall competency levels Sample Implementation Strategies There are many approaches that would meet the requirements set out in the Guidance Notes. Each institution should create a program appropriate for its size, complexity and risk profile. The Appendix provides an overview of strategies being implemented by members of the Director Training & Qualifications Working Group. Next Steps In the coming months, DICO plans to establish a director focus group to provide supplementary feedback on implementation issues and suggestions for refinements to supporting tools and best practices guidance. Contact Information Should you have any questions or comments on this initiative, or wish to participate on the director focus group, please contact Mr. Vineet Bapat, Assistant Manager, Policy & Research, Regulatory Affairs Division via e-mail at vbapat@dico.com or telephone at 416 325-8509 or toll free 1 800 268-6653 ext. 58509. Page 3

APPENDIX 1 DIRECTOR TRAINING AND QUALIFIACTIONS SAMPLE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES EXAMPLE 1 POLICY Initial policy developed using template provided but with several additions Some modifications to competency levels proposed for key functions and tighter time frame for completion Revised policy based on Board feedback expected to be approved by year end Requires initial director selfassessments within 2 months of election EXAMPLE 2 Policy under development leveraging DICO s policy template and incorporating elements of previous Board Education and Development Policy. Policy expected to be approved by year-end Initial policy will address DICO minimum requirements. Future modifications to be considered some time after implementation including whether to establish higher competency levels EXAMPLE 3 Initial policy developed and approved using guidelines as reference Further refinements will be considered during first year of implementation EXAMPLE 4 Policy developed, approved and implemented EXAMPLE 5 Draft policy to be completed in October SELF-ASSESSMENT Excel version of sample self-assessment tool used (Scoring option 1) All directors completed independent selfassessment (scoring details suppressed) Results validated by a three member committee (Board Chair, Vice Chair, Corporate Secretary) Board competency matrix completed Individual Director development plans being updated Results reflect some inconsistencies and clarifications of certain questions need to be addressed Some edits and modifications expected on a go forward basis Excel version of sample self-assessment tool used Directors are in the process of completing their self-assessment on an individual basis (scoring details suppressed) Validation process under development Individual training plans to be developed based on the results of the self-assessments Global (Board) training and development opportunities to be assessed Customized self-assessment tool under development (similar to sample tool provided) Initial self-assessment to be completed in February 2013 followed by development of director s development and training plans. Initial self-assessments scheduled for January 2013 Once self-assessments completed, the Board plans on establishing a validation committee and director development plan Director self-assessment administered over the course of three Board meetings. Page 4

EXAMPLE 6 EXAMPLE 7 POLICY Draft policy completed with anticipated approval before year end. Policy includes a description of full competency in each of the core competencies based on the questions and considerations from the self-assessment. Policy also provides details of reference sources competency. Requires initial director selfassessments within 6 months of election Draft policy under development. Completion expected mid- November. Final policy by end of year. SELF-ASSESSMENT Self-assessment tool customized. Expert level removed and the number of questions reduced slightly to approximately 10-12 per competency. Final tool expected by October 31 st. with self-assessments completed by January 15 th. Completion expected by year end. Initial director assessments of existing directors will be completed by end of year using the sample tool provided. Modifications to the sample tool will be considered in 2013 where appropriate based on feedback. Full implementation will begin in 2013 EXAMPLE 8 Existing policy updated to include all new requirements including training Approval expected by year end Initial independent self-assessment completed Some modifications anticipated to resolve misunderstanding Results validated by Board Chair and Corporate Secretary Findings reviewed collectively by the Board to identify common areas of weakness and discuss potential in-house and external training requirements Customized version to be implemented by year end. May include additional criteria/ consideration and test questions for each competency level to validate individual responses. Page 5