Discussion Paper Prepared for: FIT Council Prepared by: HL Sunday, 20 November 2016, revised 26 May 2017

FIT REPUTATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Objective

To review FIT overall reputation as well as the wider reputation of the profession and the structure in place to protect and to enhance it To sharpen FIT focus on accountability and structure

Goals To optimise limited resources (human, financial and time) by focusing all FIT communications based on target audience and scopos. To increase FIT visibility, and therefore stature and influence To provide concrete benefit to member organisations, individual members of member organisations and the wider translation, interpreting and terminology profession

Solution

To strengthen FIT accountability structure and the role subsidiarity plays and to realign (if necessary). To harmonise with FIT funding policy to ensure FIT supports global and regional activities and initiatives which are in line with FIT as the voice of professional associations of translators, interpreters and terminologists and as the state-of-the-art international organisation (NGO)

Project Outline

• To review FIT current reputation architecture • To supplement structure, policy and regulations where there is a gap • To define and realign FIT structure and organisation based on this review

FIT REPUTATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY

FIT is the voice of professional associations of translators, interpreters and terminologists around the world. It originated in Europe in the postwar era. FIT has a strong reputation in the world of translation, interpreting and terminology and all matters relating to these. FIT was often attributed to be the global authority on all matters translation, interpreting and terminology and is recognised as the home of the first academic journal of our profession - Babel, now in its 64th volume. In effect, FIT’s reputation impacts on the image of the wider profession.

Throughout history, FIT has played leading roles and been actively involved in major developments in our profession through organs like the EU and the UN (e.g. Nairobi Convention and Directive 2010/64/EU).

This important work, which brings real value to individual professional translators, interpreters and terminologists, nearly always happened over a long time horizon across mandates, in the background, with the hard work of individuals or groups of experts working without acknowledgement and/or with their positions in these missions seen as individual either unsupported or not mandated by FIT.

There are two key motivations behind this review: 1. Who should be the guardian of FIT’s reputation? 2. Who should represent FIT externally? How should FIT’s external involvement be mandated/authorised and

funded?

This paper will explore some of the alternatives and hopefully afford member associations and those attending the upcoming Statutory Congress an opportunity to reflect on what FIT represents and how best it can achieve its mission.

Organisational structure Under the Bylaws and Rules of the Procedure of FIT, FIT is a global, international federation with individual member associations representing professional and specialty interests in nation states, territories and areas.

The accountability and representative structure is a direct one, between FIT and individual member associations.

Member associations join FIT and pay FIT an annual membership / subscription fee to support the Federation, what it represents and the work it does, at the same time gaining access to the benefit that FIT membership provides. In addition to financial contribution, member associations also contribute invaluable human resources through nomination of experts to different organs of FIT, in the form of task forces, standing committees, regional centres and the Council.

FIT is therefore directly accountable to member associations and represents member associations in all matters international, or in other ways beyond one’s border and jurisdiction. FIT also directly supports member associations affording them international visibility and credibility. FIT’s collaboration with other stakeholders bring direct, often international, benefits to national member associations.

Recognising the geographic distance that a limited resourced FIT needed to cover to carry out its mission and its tasks, at the dawn of the jet engine age, without internet or even facsimile, FIT introduced an additional benefit to member associations through the establishment of regional centres.

Legal Status of Regional Centres Section IV, Article §36-41 of the Bylaws clearly states the purpose of Regional Centres most recently revised at the Berlin Congress to give more prominence of potential additional contribution they can give to FIT membership and just as importantly the relationship between FIT Regional Centres and FIT as well as that between FIT RCs and individual FIT member associations.

In particular, it is important to stress that membership in FIT regional centres (RCs) is voluntary. This is to ensure that FIT is a not just a regional voice, but an international voice of professional associations of translators, interpreters and terminologists with additional regional support and focus. FIT Regional Centres for Europe, Latin America and North America are organs under FIT, and are therefore accountable to both FIT and to member associations which have decided to join FIT.

Regional Centres are neither legal entities, nor autonomous. Appointment of Boards of FIT Regional Centres are subject to FIT Council ratification. Based on current Bylaws and RoP, FIT does not have any instrument to enforce compliance and agreements.

Restructuring? Could FIT be organised differently? Some may ask. And there is question of whether FIT can have a bottom up approach.

Of course, there are always other options. This paper will explore some of the alternatives and hopefully afford member associations and those attending the upcoming Statutory Congress an opportunity to reflect on the what FIT represents and how best it can achieve its mission.

One could argue that there is no more direct or bottom up approach than the current FIT structure where individual member associations have direct relationship with FIT and those elected to govern FIT on their behalf. FIT Council is directly made up of representatives and experts from FIT member associations.There is no more direct or grassroots approach.

Nevertheless, if FIT were to be restructured, for instance, such that FIT individual members have a direct relationship only with its Regional Centres (and the Regional Centres in turn have a direct relationship with the FIT Statutory Congress, and the FIT Council, which represents the authority of the Congress when it is not in session), what would that look like?

Totally regional approach For a totally regional / continental approach, individual member associations would pay its contribution to their respective Regional Centres (if it exists) and in turn would demand services and support from the respective Regional Centres. In addition, the Regional Centres then decide on behalf of their constituencies at what level of support it would give to the International Federation. Who decides? The Regional General Assemblies? Is there a formula? What if the GA decided to pay FIT nothing for the next three years? The distance between the International body and national member associations will be much more distanced than the current structure. The influence and involvement any national association has on international and global matters would also be much diminished if it exists at all. The accountability would also be less direct. This would essentially render FIT a Confederation of regional FITs, around the world and in turn individual regional FITs would be representatives of professional associations with its region, rather than a Federation of professional associations.

The current triennial Statutory Congress would also change in nature as it would only be attended by the heads or representatives of Regional Centres as the global body would only be accountable to the Regional Centres which fund it, making it much smaller scale and a less significant and therefore less influential gathering. One would also argue that the triennial Statutory Congress could become redundant as it would be replaced in effect by Regional Statutory Congresses (in lieu of the current General Assemblies for Regional Centres which vary from 100% attendance to less than 50% including proxies). This would also increase the burden on the host of such Regional Centre General Assemblies as they would have to take over the academic and research roles which the World Congress historically plays.

What would the task forces and Standing Committees look like? Would they have to be devolved and therefore duplicated into regional task forces and regional Standing Committees? Solidarity fund Standing Committees for North America with funds dispersible only to North American associations in need; and Human

Rights Standing Committees for Europe working on human rights issues within the continent. From this, one could conclude that this devolved regional model would likely limit if not effectively deny collaboration outside of the region/continent.

This would also increase the overhead of the individual Regional Centres, each with its own secretariat, treasury, communication team as well as cost needed to comply with auditing requirement, compliance cost, transfer of money. This could as a result lead to different regions charging different annual fees to cover their cost and to achieve their aims causing increase in fees and widening the gap between regions, rather than bringing the profession closer together.

The relationship between FIT and UNESCO and less known relationship with ECOSCO, which are key pillars of our international, regional and national reputation as a Category A NGO and consultative partner respectively, would be difficult to maintain under the devolved model.

Furthermore, this model would also prohibit or essentially prohibit national associations situated in the cross road of continents to be part of different Regional Centres. National associations from countries like Turkey, Russia, the Caucasus, Mexico and Egypt would have to choose which Regional Centres they would belong to and contribute their fees accordingly. In the case of Russia and Turkey where currently there are more than one associations belonging to FIT, do they have to agree amongst themselves which regional centres they join? If not, or if they cannot agree, this could result in different associations choosing different Regional Centres it would be affiliated to and lend its support. Competition between Regional Centres on funding and influence is a real possibility, especially where such overlap exists.

One of the many strengths of the current FIT model is that each country representative, each national member association has equal weight in its contribution to the policy and direction of the Federation, around the world. The International and equitable nature of this project is the strength of FIT. Larger associations do not have disproportional influence on the Federation; nor larger Regional Centres. FIT gathers expertise, experience and financial contributions from around the world and directs them to areas of need as determined by the Statutory Congress and the Council it elects and appoints.

Part regional approach? Is there possibility of “devolution-lite”?

Again, there is always a possibility. But the logics of part International, part regional/continental contributions create another issue. How is that proportion to be determined? 50-50%? Set by whom? Who has the authority to adjust it when there is a particular need regionally or internationally? What happens when one national association disagrees with regional policy and prefers to support international projects? Or vice-versa?

This does not solve the issue of cross-road national associations being forced to choose which 50% or 30% of their contributions have to go to which continent/regional centre. This is after all the key to self determination, an important issue to be assessed when considering devolution.

What about dedicated Regional Centre representatives on Council? i.e. an electoral college system where each regional selects its own representatives to occupy a defined number of seats on Council? This may well be feasible if FIT were a static organisation with a fixed membership, i.e no new members entering or members electing to leave. Why? A fixed electoral college will become disproportionately unfair when the composition of the Federation changes, for arguments sake a huge increase in membership in Oceania, violating the self determination let alone the democratic principles. Furthermore, an electoral college system usually penalises big groups. For example, under current membership, there are two oceanian member, so the minimal Regional Centre representative has to be 1. How many representatives do we need to have this 1:2 ratio for Europe? 25? Also, once the ratio is fixed, it becomes very hard to change (even if there is a defined

mechanism) and the region(s) or continent(s) with more seats would be extremely reluctant to give up its dominance even in face of overwhelming evidence. This would also invariably facilitate gerrymandering.

The current system to elect the Council is democratic and reflects faithfully the composition and constitution of the Federation with the additional co-option system ensuring representation from important but lesser dominant region or subspecialties (e.g. Africa or terminologists).

Reputation and External representation Following the aforementioned analysis, it is clear that under the current system, the Statutory Congress when it is in session and the Council, in between Statutory Congresses is the designated guardian of FIT’s reputation.

This also means that all Organs of FIT are accountable to the Statutory Congress when it is in session and the Council in between Statutory Congresses. Such accountability is ultimately to the individual membership. But under current structure, FIT Organs appear to function in various level of autonomy and therefore independent of the FIT Council, including issues outside of regional or subspecialty jurisdiction.

FIT Council is duly elected and delegated the responsibility to represent FIT across all domains and across continents. Council therefore has the final ratification on all activities and actions of FIT especially when it involves external partners and external relationships. And it is obliged to report to membership via minutes of Council Meetings, with additional communications via Press Releases, social media like Facebook and Twitter and Translatio articles just to name a few.

Task forces and Standing Committees (RoP §73) and Regional Centres (Bylaws §39) are internal structures of FIT and likewise obliged to report to Council periodically and/or annually. Statutory Congress could in specific circumstances delegate specific external representation responsibility and mandate to specific Organs. But it is difficult to conceive a generic mandate to all Organs of FIT, in parallel with FIT. Similarly, individual member associations by virtue of joining FIT and as part of the Statutory Congress have done the same individually and collectively. An individual member or collection of individual members cannot withdraw such mandate and redirect it to any other Organs of FIT, without it being proposed to the Statutory Congress and duly discussed and decided. This is the principle of collective responsibly and democracy.

Accountability and line of reporting and instruction From the above, under the current structure, all FIT Organs are accountable to the Statutory Congress and the FIT Council in between Congresses. In order to ensure a coherent, unified message, policy and therefore reputation, all activities (and public statements if permitted) of Organs must be submitted to Council for scrutiny and approval, prior to commencement of activity or project, and prior to dissemination of statement and documentation. Any variation to the established FIT position must be notified by the Organ concerned and scrutinised and ratified by FIT accordingly. In reciprocity, whilst the 17-member Council represents the whole of the Federation, good governance also suggests that FIT should from time to time consult membership and Organs to ensure true representation. This is why individual Council Members are given a number of member associations, a proportion of the Federation, with which they form good relationships and with which they communicate regularly to reflect their views and concerns to the FIT Council, including concerns or input to specific Organs of FIT. At the same time, all FIT member associations are encouraged to nominate a FIT liaison officer who forms the other part of this important bond between Member Associations and FIT.

Dispute and Arbitration From time to time, there would be differences in opinion and approach whereupon individual Member Association or a group thereof whereby they feel certain Organs of FIT failed to exercise their duty for example failure in advocating on their behalf (often in favour of our member association(s)). It is important that such dispute, which may be due to mis-communication, can be resolved internally and speedily. In the devolution models, this would be very difficult if not impossible given the weakened mandate, authority and resources FIT Council would have in its disposal.

In exceptional circumstances, concerns could be raised with respect to the action of the Council. Structure must be in place when such need arises. This could be resolved with the Ombudsman model (see contract paper)

Conclusion This mandate continues to build on the strong reputation which FIT has accumulated since its inception over 60 years ago. The increase in very visible presence worldwide has brought benefit to the Federation and our member associations. It is critical that we have the proper structure which would allow the Federation to continue to grow whilst maintaining harmonising our message and approach worldwide and at the same time benefiting from our diverse and global membership.

Whether it is full devolution or devolution lite, it translates into less or no oversight from Member Associations of the Federation. There is every risk of discordance message and image within the region and definitely across the regional, and in the age of almost instantaneous global communication, this will harm our reputation. Furthermore, it would mean FIT being less representative, more regional and therefore less respected and less influential. At the same time, FIT must treasure and therefore harness the diversity around the world as our important strength and have transparent structure in place allowing differences in opinion, approach and concerns be properly addressed and resolved.

No other grouping in our profession has the history with, reputation with, respect from and backing from international bodies like UNESCO, ECOSCO and WIPO. Fully devolved or devolution-lite would definitely savage such important ties.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the cost of running a fully devolved or devolution-lite model would inevitable mean higher cost and consequently, either higher membership subscription and/or less benefits, let alone less repetitional capital.

From this analysis, it is hoped that it is obvious that Together, the Federation is stronger than its parts. The question is how together? The current structure is relevant and changes should not be made unless there will be a clear benefit.