Summary of DCL Representation Survey Review

Meeting Context

This session reviewed a survey on the structure and role of DCL representation at the National Board of Directors (NBOD).

Understand member needs and discuss committee vs. individual representation.
Explore communication mechanisms and funding considerations.
Participants included technical advisors, DCL representatives, and regional leaders.

Most favored an advisory committee to the board, with one committee member attending NBOD.
The representative role is not full-time but requires meeting preparation, attendance, and information sharing.

Highest support for regional DCL gatherings and national virtual town halls.
Written updates (email/newsletter) were also considered useful.
Challenges include limited access to email, internet, or Zoom in remote regions, necessitating alternatives like mail or WhatsApp.

Many DCLs do not meet often, and email readership is inconsistent.
Suggestions included Zoom meetings with local presidents and asynchronous updates via alternative platforms.
Remote communities often lack internet, making digital communication unreliable; in-person interactions are effective but costly.

A majority (56.5%) felt DCLs should not opt out of national participation.
The preferred representation structure (committee vs. individual) might influence agreement on this.

Oversee national-level service agreements.
Support members with issues.
Collaborate with PSEC on events.
Concerns about duplicating functions already handled by REVPs were raised.
Standardizing service agreements across regions is important for fairness and local capacity.

A new cost might face resistance at convention and impact dues.
Suggestions included embedding costs (e.g., 0.5–1.5%) in service agreements instead of raising dues.
The total cost needs to be defined before determining funding sources.
Current service agreements and dues allocations are inconsistent and require ongoing review.

Communication: Limited digital access in remote areas requires multiple channels.
Representation: Committee structure may improve inclusivity over a single representative.
Funding: Budget constraints and unpopular dues increases necessitate creative solutions like embedding costs.
Service Agreements: Inconsistency across regions requires review and standardization.
Geographic/Sector Differences: Large variations in DCL sizes and member needs (e.g., Indigenous police services, northern DCLs).

Develop models for committee structure, functions, and costs.
Review service agreements for consistency and potential funding allocation.
Consider multiple communication mechanisms (email, Zoom, in-person, WhatsApp/Discord, mail).
Gather feedback at NBOD and convention to assess feasibility and support.
Ensure the committee's mandate is clear and well-defined to guide operations and justify costs.