In the interest of “transparency”, one of the key recommendations of the recent InterAcademy Council (IAC)’s review of the processes and procedures of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was as follows [p. 66]:
The IPCC should develop and adopt formal qualifications and formally articulate the roles and responsibilities for all Bureau members, including the IPCC Chair, to ensure that they have both the highest scholarly qualifications and proven leadership skills. [emphasis added -hro]
A written job description is the most important criteria in volunteer programme management. A job description should be prepared for every volunteer position, no matter how big or small. The advantage of written job description is that the duties, expectations and responsibilities of both the volunteer and the organization are outlined clearly. Knowing the requirements of individual volunteer jobs in advance simplifies the selection/recruitment and management of volunteers.
Written job descriptions help an organization think in advance about how to provide volunteers with opportunities to contribute that are both challenging and rewarding. Sometimes individual volunteers fail because the role, relationship and/or duties of the volunteer are never clearly defined. Lack of definition can result in a less than positive experience and confusion for the volunteer. [emphasis added -hro]
Yet, the “REVIEW OF THE IPCC PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES Proposal by the Task Group on Governance and Management”, a document which purports to – inter alia – [p. 2]:
[propose] detailed responses to the IAC review with respect to the establishment of an Executive Committee, the Term of Office of the Chair and the Working Group and Task Force co-chairs, and the head of the secretariat.
will be discussed at the upcoming [May 10-13] 33rd session of the IPCC. That which is conspicuous by its absence in this “proposal” is … wait for it … any indication that this particular “volunteer program” is likely to have these fundamental criteria addressed in the foreseeable future.
Instead one finds [p. 7]:
5. Terms of Reference of the Bureau
5.1 The functions of the Bureau have evolved over several decisions of the Panel and do not exist in one set of terms of reference. In response to the decisions of the Panel at IPCC-32 draft terms of reference were prepared for the consideration of the Panel. These will also cover proposals for formal qualifications, roles and responsibilities for Bureau members.
These TOR have not undergone such a full consideration and consultation as the other decisions listed above as there was insufficient time at the February meeting to compile a full set of documents.
5.2 The following terms of reference for the Bureau are presented in Paragraph 5.3 for
information and it is recommended that more time is allowed for their review and propose
that they be considered fully at IPCC-34.
5.3 [Covered in a separate document] (sic with no link -hro)
Insufficient time, eh?! Awww … what a shame!
YMMV, but in my books this “proposal” is yet another indication that when it comes to “transparency” these IPCC folks soooooooo don’t get it!