If you are seeing this text, it is because you are using an obsolete browser which does not support current web standards. The site will still function, but some parts of it may look unusual. We recommend upgrading to a current browser version.
AGA logo
Advancing Government Accountability
About AGA
AGA Store
CGFM Certification
Conferences & Events
Continuing Education
Intergovernmental Partnership
Jobs
Join Now!
Membership & Chapters
Outreach
Performance & Accountability
Press Room
Publications
Radio Show
Renew Now!
Research
Corporate Partners
Standards & Research
AGA Home

arrow 
GO

Print This Page



Publications

AGA TOPICS Newsletter

From the National President

By: Samuel T. Mok, CGFM, CIA, CICA

With my term as AGA National President coming to a close, I would like to take this opportunity to both share with you my reflections on the office of the president and offer some suggestions for the National Executive Committee and the National Board of Directors to consider. 

As you know, the National President is chosen by the Nominating Committee through majority vote. The Immediate Past National President chairs the committee and the Nominating Committee members are either appointed by the National President or are elected among national or chapter level officers according to certain provisions of the AGA Bylaws. The National President candidates must meet certain predetermined AGA qualifications and no campaigning for office is permitted. While the election process is not perfect, it has come under criticism recently, I found it to be sound and effective under the circumstances. The only suggestion I have in this area is to consider loosening up the candidacy requirements so there is a broader pool of candidates to compete for the top leadership post. We do not have such strict candidacy restrictions for becoming the president of the United States and AGA should not be any different. Currently, we have an extremely small pool of qualified candidates from which we can select a National President due to these restrictions. 

Since AGA is a not for profit (501c3) organization that derives much of its revenue from government sources, directly and indirectly, voluntary compliance with the most stringent prevailing government ethics standards and practices is a recommended sound management approach. As the “thought leader” for accountability and transparency, AGA should, of course, practice what it preaches. Enabling the AGA National Office to become the model operation for accountability and transparency should be a priority and a measure of staff performance within the National Office. For example, GAO and the inspectors general offices always hold themselves to much higher standards than the rest of the government. We should do the same. Unfortunately, AGA still has some way to go in this area. Given the heightened ethical standards mandated by the Obama administration, I recommend that AGA establishes a very competent, qualified and INDEPENDENT Ethics Advisor position to help it focus on these matters. This should be an unpaid position filled by someone with a good track record in the ethics profession and that person should have no prior financial ties to AGA and will promise not to enter into any financial relationship with AGA after vacating the position. 

One of the management challenges in our accountability and transparency area is the lack of an institutionalized and robust checks and balances process at the National Office level for day-to-day operations. Another is the lack of clear definition over accountability (and therefore authority) between the “elected” National President (who is an unpaid volunteer, usually with a demanding full-time day job) and the salaried full-time executive director who is serving in a staff position. While nobody has ever accused me of being shy or passive, I am still grappling with that elusive issue after almost one year as the National President. Much to my surprise, I have been challenged more than once about my authority as the president when I inquired about routine management policies and matters. 

It is very important to point out that in this article there is neither intended suggestion of improper behavior by any National Office staff member nor any hint of irregular activities at the National Office. But, in my opinion, it is an issue of accountability and transparency culture that needs an institutional updating if we aim to fully practice what we preach. To achieve an optimum level of transparency and accountability, the relationship between the National President and the executive director should be similar to the cabinet agency (AGA National Office) where the political appointees (elected volunteer AGA national officers, including the president) provide the policy AND operational leadership and oversight (therefore checks and balances) over the career executives (the AGA National Office management staff). However, some at the national level would rather view this relationship being akin to that of a part time legislature (NEC and NBD) and the full-time executive branches (National Office) where the two are equal. I believe that in a well managed traditional hierarchical organization for business professionals, the top leader of the organization should have unfettered access to operational and management information about the organization and, as such, he/she should be the ultimate accountable officer. Under the current AGA set up, I am not sure if that person is the National President or the executive director.  I appointed a Governance Committee under the leadership of John Radford, CGFM, state controller of Oregon, to examine this issue and I understand that our National President-Elect, Dr. Morehead, plans to continue the efforts of this committee to determine whether the AGA governance structure needs to be modified. 

Another issue related to the National Presidency is the one-year term limit. AGA is a complex operation with vibrant programs year round. Frequently, by the time the new president “masters the throttle,” it is time to leave office. I recommend that consideration should be given to a possible two-year term, upon approval of the NBD. This will allow some flexibility to ensure continuity of leadership under unusual situations.

Last but not least, I believe there should be a comprehensive review of the current AGA revenue model and the related success measurement metrics. For example, we rejoice in a growing membership, an expanding number of chapters and a steady flow of research papers. I applaud all these successes, and I am grateful for the hard work and dedication of our national staff, especially the leadership of our executive director, Dr. Van Daniker. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that most of the “success measurements” we are currently using should be updated. For example, while we have about 15,000 members nationally, what is the geographic penetration rate by locality? There must be more than 100,000 government financial management types in the Washington D.C. area, yet in my twenty plus years of AGA activity participation at the Greater Washington D.C. area, I have never witnessed more than several hundred active members supporting AGA chapter events at any given time. I think we can and should do much better. The National Office can and should play an active role to assist with these efforts. With more than 90 chapters nationally, we should have up-to-date chapter “heath status” monitoring in an organized and timely manner to prevent sudden collapse or “hallowing” out of chapters because of over dependency of membership on a single government agency or senior executive. With the research papers being published, there should be a business-oriented measurement on the usefulness of these papers and the actual results achieved. We cannot confuse process with results. As the national economy continues to deteriorate, I also think that we should impose a very disciplined business case requirement on budget funding suggestions. I have other suggestions in this vein, but I will leave my last article with the above mentioned ideas.

You may disagree with some of the above reflections and suggestions but I feel it is my duty to put them on the table and on record after my short tenure. It is up to the NEC, NBD and you, the members, to decide whether these issues have merit and I urge you to truly consider these issues and the suggestions. It is important for you to voice your opinion to your NEC and NBD representatives. You are also welcome to send your comments to me directly at agapresident@gmail.com.

In closing, I want to thank you for the opportunity and privilege to serve you and I hope I have lived up to your expectations. After I step down from office, I will resume living up my life motto as I pass along to all of you:

Make some money

Have some fun

Leave some footprints

Sam

P. S. There are two other matters I wish to share with you. Many  members contacted me with questions and suggestions expressing regrets for not being able to have AGA play a significant role with the Obama administration transition. As we know, President Obama will nominate a new comptroller general as well as a dozen cabinet CFOs. AGA should play a very active role in providing input to the President and Congress regarding the desired qualifications of the candidates for these positions. This input should be approved by the NEC/NBD before being made public. So far, we have been watching in silence on the sideline. I will propose letters to the President and Congress on these matters and will ask the NEC and NBD to endorse these letters. On a second note, I would like to make full disclosure  for the record that my total amount for reimbursement of travel and travel-related expenses over the span of 19 chapter visits during my year as president come out to under $6,000. There have been no other expenses claimed to this date.