Written resolutions and an undisclosed interest at a water authority
Valley Water Authority is a publicly owned utility serving 620,000 customers. It is governed by a 14-member board of part-time commissioners appointed for four-year terms by regional politicians. The board has no charter and meets quarterly for three hours with agendas of 60 or more items; roughly 90 percent of items sit on a consent agenda approved without discussion. A written-resolution procedure allows decisions to be taken when nine commissioners email their approval. Minutes record the outcome but rarely the reasoning. The chief executive can sign contracts up to EUR 10 million under a delegation schedule last revised in 2015. In March the board approved a EUR 40 million pipeline contract by written resolution; one commissioner's family construction firm is a named subcontractor, which was not disclosed. A local newspaper has asked for the resolution and the register of interests. The chair wants a quick external review before the next board meeting.
1. Diagnose the governance failures in this scenario using ISO 37000's principles of oversight, accountability and data and decisions. Avoid simply listing symptoms; explain the causal links.
Read the worked answer
Oversight fails because the structure makes scrutiny impossible: a 14-member part-time board meeting quarterly for three hours cannot deliberate on 60 items, so the consent agenda converts approval into ratification. The board is not overseeing management; it is processing management's decisions.
Accountability fails because written resolutions record approval but not reasoning, alternatives or conflicts. When the pipeline contract is challenged, no one can show who knew what, what was considered, or why EUR 40 million was appropriate. The undisclosed subcontractor interest turns a process defect into a legitimacy problem: the decision cannot be defended as disinterested.
Data and decisions fails because decisions are taken without adequate information and without documenting the basis. A delegation schedule unchanged since 2015 means the board has not revisited its risk appetite for a decade, while the CEO can commit EUR 10 million unilaterally.
The causal chain is: structural overload plus permissive procedures plus poor information produces decisions that are legally possible but governably indefensible. The conflict is not an isolated ethics lapse; the process made it invisible.
2. Redesign the board's decision-making architecture. Specify changes to composition, committees, delegation and conflict management, and explain the trade-offs.
Read the worked answer
Composition: reduce to 9-11 members with a published skills matrix covering finance, engineering, regulation, safety and community engagement. Trade-off: smaller boards are more deliberative but reduce geographic and political representation; mitigate with formal stakeholder liaison, not board seats.
Committees: create an audit and risk committee and a capital projects committee, each with an independent chair and authority to obtain external advice. Reserve major contracts, procurement deviations and related-party matters to the full board.
Delegation: replace the 2015 schedule with a tiered matrix by value, risk and related-party status. Set conditions, reporting thresholds and an annual review. The CEO should not be able to approve a contract where a commissioner has an interest at any value.
Conflict management: maintain a public register, require declaration at the earliest point, require recusal from discussion and decision, and record the recusal in minutes. Trade-off: recusal can remove technical expertise, so committees need enough depth to proceed without the conflicted member.
Meeting discipline: replace blanket consent with explicit consent criteria, a pull-item mechanism, and written resolutions limited to urgent, low-risk matters with a recorded rationale and an objection window. More meetings and papers cost money, but the current model costs more in invalid or challenged decisions.
3. The pipeline contract has already been approved. What should the board do now? Address validity, disclosure and remediation.
Read the worked answer
First, take legal advice on whether the written resolution complied with the authority's constitution, procurement rules and conflict-of-interest law. Validity is a legal question; defensibility is a governance question. Do not simply ratify the contract to make the problem disappear, because ratification without an independent review would repeat the defect.
Second, commission an independent review of the procurement process, the subcontractor relationship and the commissioner's involvement, with a mandate to recommend whether the award should stand, be varied or be re-tendered. Consider suspending the subcontractor pending the review if the contract permits.
Third, disclose appropriately. The newspaper request and the register of interests should be answered under the applicable transparency regime. If the commissioner failed to declare an interest, refer the matter to the relevant standards body and record the board's response.
Fourth, re-decide with disinterested members if the process was procedurally defective, and minute the reasoning, alternatives considered and legal advice relied on.
Finally, remediate the system: update the register, adopt the conflict policy, revise the delegation schedule and report publicly on the outcome. The board should distinguish correcting this contract from preventing the next one.