ما تزال مجالس الإدارات في معظم الجهات الحكومية بعيدة عن أداء دورها الفعلي، فالصلاحيات والمهمات المُناطة بها بموجب الأنظمة الصادرة بأوامر ملكية وقرارات مجلس الوزراء هي مهمات كبيرة ومحوريّة، إذْ تقع عليها مسؤولية رسم إستراتيجية الجهة والتحقق من نجاعة برامجها ومشروعاتها والإشراف على إدارتها وأدائها وتصريف أمورها، وإقرار السياسات والخطط التي تُحقق أهدافها، لكن في الواقع فإن دور هذه المجالس محدود وأثرها ضعيف، فالإدارة التنفيذية غالباً ما تستحوذ على مهمات مجلس الإدارة، بل وتستخدمه في تمرير واعتماد برامجها ومشروعاتها حتى وإن كانت تلك البرامج ضعيفة وغير متماسكة.
السبب في ذلك يرجع إلى عوامل عدة؛ أحدها نظام ترشيح رؤساء المجالس وأعضائها، وأيضاً آليات عملها، فرئيس مجلس الإدارة يُرَشَّح وفقاً لمبدأ ارتباط وتقارب التخصص مع القطاع الرئيس (الوزارة)، بمعنى أن أي هيئة أو مركز أو مؤسسة حكومية، يتولى رئاسة مجلسها المسؤول الأول في القطاع المركزي المرتبط بتخصص الجهة (غالباً وزارة).
والواقع أن كثرة مسؤوليات رئيس مجلس الإدارة والأعضاء وتعدّد مهماتهم ومشاغلهم تجعلهم يتعاملون مع هذه الوظائف وكأنها مناصب شرفية، فأحد المسؤولين يرأس أكثر من (25) مجلس إدارة جهة حكومية ما بين هيئة ومركز ومؤسسة، ويتمتع بعضوية أكثر من (30) مجلساً، إضافة إلى مسؤولياته الجسيمة في قيادة جهة حكومية تتكون من ثلاثة قطاعات ضخمة، فإذا افترضنا أن لديه القدرات الفردية الكافية للإسهام الفاعل والنّوعي في هذه المجالس، فمن أين له الوقت؟! كما أن آليات عمل المجالس يعتريها الضعف، فمحاضر الجلسات تُعدّها الجهة نفسها، إضافة إلى أن المجالس تقوم في هيكلتها التنظيمية على اجتماع أعضاء المجلس أربع أو خمس مرات في السنة؛ فكيف يمكن تحقيق مهمات ومسؤوليات المجلس الكبيرة المنصوص عليها بنظام الجهة بهذا العدد من الجلسات؟!
تنظيم مجالس الإدارات في الجهات الحكومية يحتاج إلى مراجعة وتحديث وتطوير وإعادة هيكلة. ومن بين المقترحات التي يمكن أخذها في الاعتبار النقاط التالية:
- فك ارتباط رئاسة مجلس الهيئة أو المركز بالجهة المركزية في التخصص (الوزارة)، فالهيئات والمراكز الحكومية تقوم في بنائها التنظيمي على مهمات واختصاصات واضحة ومحددة، وفك الارتباط بوزير القطاع سيحقق فوائد في الرقابة والحوكمة وتطوير الأداء والمساءلة والمحاسبة، أما موضوع ضمان توحيد السياسات ما بين الوزارة والهيئة أو المركز - في حال كان الوزير هو رئيس المجلس - فهي حجة لا تستند على مبدأ تنظيمي متين، فالعمل المؤسسي المُحَوكم ليس مرتبطاً بالأفراد، فالأصل أن الوزارة هي من يضع السياسات والإستراتيجيات العامة للقطاع بكل مؤسساته الفرعية، والقطاعات الفرعية - المستقلة تنظيميّاً- يُفترض أنها تقوم على خطة إستراتيجية محددة الأهداف والآليات، ويكفي أن تُمَثَّل الوزارة بعضو في مجلس الإدارة.
- إعادة النظر في ترشيح (مُمثّلين) عن الجهات الحكومية في مجالس الإدارات، فهؤلاء لا يضيفون شيئاً للمجالس، ويغلب على أدائهم المجاملات وتبادل المصالح، والمُلاحظ أن عدد مُمثلي الجهات الحكومية في المجالس يصل إلى 80% من الأعضاء.
- ضخّ ثقافة جديدة في نظام المجالس تقوم على الإنجاز من خلال ترشيح كفاءات من المتخصصين المِهَنيّين لرئاسة هذه المجالس وعضويتها، فالمملكة وبفضل استثمارها في المورد البشري تملك كفاءات عالية التأهيل ومتمكنة من تخصصها ومجال عملها، وتُعدّ الجامعات والشركات الكبيرة أرضاً خصبة للقيادات والكفاءات المؤهلة، وبالإمكان ترشيح كفاءات متخصصة (في مجال وتخصص الجهة) ممّن ليس لديهم مسؤوليات ومناصب كبيرة ومتعددة بحيث تتركز جهودهم واهتمامهم في أعمال المجلس وخدمة القطاع.
- زيادة عدد الحد الأدنى لانعقاد جلسات المجلس في السنة، وتحديد اختصاصات المجلس بصورة واضحة، وتقليص تفويض صلاحيات المجلس للإدارة التنفيذية، وتفعيل مبدأ المحاسبة والمساءلة لأعضاء المجلس، وتشكيل إدارة/أمانة تنفيذية للمجلس ترتبط برئيس المجلس وليس برئيس القطاع، تتولى إعداد الموضوعات وتجهيزها وصياغة المحاضر، ويمكن أن يُرشح أحد أعضاء المجلس لرئاسة هذه الإدارة، بحيث تكون مستقلة عن الإدارة التنفيذية للجهة.
(رؤية 2030) تلامس هذا الموضوع، وتؤكد أهمية تحديد الاختصاصات لتفعيل المسؤولية والمساءلة: «سنعمل على إعادة هيكلة مستمرة ومرنة لأجهزتنا الحكومية، تُلغي الأدوار المتكررة، وتسعى إلى توحيد الجهود وتسهيل الإجراءات وتحديد الاختصاصات بشكل واضح، وتفعيل مسؤولية الجهات في تسلّم مهماتها بشكل يسمح لها بالتنفيذ ويُمكّن المساءلة».
عبدالله المحيميد
مجالس الإدارات في الجهات الحكومية.. والدور المفقود !
15 أكتوبر 2025 - 01:24
|
آخر تحديث 15 أكتوبر 2025 - 01:24
تابع قناة عكاظ على الواتساب
The boards of directors in most government entities are still far from performing their actual role. The powers and tasks assigned to them under the regulations issued by royal orders and cabinet decisions are significant and central tasks. They bear the responsibility of outlining the entity's strategy, ensuring the effectiveness of its programs and projects, supervising its management and performance, and handling its affairs, as well as approving the policies and plans that achieve its goals. However, in reality, the role of these boards is limited and their impact is weak, as the executive management often monopolizes the tasks of the board of directors, even using it to pass and approve its programs and projects, even if those programs are weak and incoherent.
The reason for this is attributed to several factors; one of which is the system for nominating the chairs and members of the boards, as well as their operational mechanisms. The chair of the board is nominated based on the principle of relevance and proximity to the main sector (the ministry), meaning that any authority, center, or government institution is chaired by the top official in the central sector related to the entity's specialization (usually a ministry).
In reality, the numerous responsibilities of the chair and members of the board, along with their various tasks and commitments, lead them to treat these positions as honorary roles. One official chairs more than 25 boards of government entities, including authorities, centers, and institutions, and holds membership in more than 30 boards, in addition to his substantial responsibilities in leading a government entity composed of three large sectors. If we assume that he has the individual capabilities to contribute effectively and qualitatively in these boards, where would he find the time?! Furthermore, the operational mechanisms of the boards are weak, as the minutes of the meetings are prepared by the entity itself, and the boards are structured to meet four or five times a year; how can the significant tasks and responsibilities of the board, as stipulated in the entity's regulations, be achieved with such a limited number of meetings?!
The organization of boards of directors in government entities needs review, updating, development, and restructuring. Among the suggestions that can be considered are the following points:
- Decoupling the chairmanship of the authority or center's board from the central entity in the specialization (the ministry). Government authorities and centers are built on clear and defined tasks and competencies, and decoupling from the sector minister will yield benefits in oversight, governance, performance development, accountability, and responsibility. As for the issue of ensuring the unification of policies between the ministry and the authority or center—if the minister is the chair of the board—this is an argument that does not rely on a solid organizational principle. Institutional work is not tied to individuals; the ministry is supposed to set the general policies and strategies for the sector and all its subsidiary institutions, and the independent sub-sectors should operate based on a strategic plan with specific goals and mechanisms, and it suffices for the ministry to be represented by a member on the board.
- Reevaluating the nomination of (representatives) from government entities on the boards of directors, as these do not add anything to the boards and their performance is often characterized by courtesy and mutual interests, with the observation that the number of representatives from government entities on the boards reaches 80% of the members.
- Injecting a new culture into the board system based on achievement by nominating qualified professionals to chair and be members of these boards. Thanks to its investment in human resources, the Kingdom possesses highly qualified talents adept in their specialties and fields of work. Universities and large companies are fertile ground for qualified leadership and talents, and it is possible to nominate specialized talents (in the field and specialization of the entity) who do not have significant and multiple responsibilities so that their efforts and attention can be focused on the work of the board and serving the sector.
- Increasing the minimum number of meetings for the board per year, clearly defining the board's competencies, reducing the delegation of powers to the executive management, activating the principle of accountability and responsibility for board members, and forming an executive management/secretariat for the board that is linked to the chair of the board and not the head of the sector, which will be responsible for preparing topics, organizing them, and drafting the minutes. One of the board members can be nominated to lead this management, ensuring it is independent from the executive management of the entity.
(Vision 2030) touches on this issue and emphasizes the importance of defining competencies to activate responsibility and accountability: "We will work on a continuous and flexible restructuring of our government agencies, eliminating redundant roles, seeking to unify efforts, simplify procedures, and clearly define competencies, and activating the responsibility of entities in assuming their tasks in a manner that allows them to execute and enables accountability."
The reason for this is attributed to several factors; one of which is the system for nominating the chairs and members of the boards, as well as their operational mechanisms. The chair of the board is nominated based on the principle of relevance and proximity to the main sector (the ministry), meaning that any authority, center, or government institution is chaired by the top official in the central sector related to the entity's specialization (usually a ministry).
In reality, the numerous responsibilities of the chair and members of the board, along with their various tasks and commitments, lead them to treat these positions as honorary roles. One official chairs more than 25 boards of government entities, including authorities, centers, and institutions, and holds membership in more than 30 boards, in addition to his substantial responsibilities in leading a government entity composed of three large sectors. If we assume that he has the individual capabilities to contribute effectively and qualitatively in these boards, where would he find the time?! Furthermore, the operational mechanisms of the boards are weak, as the minutes of the meetings are prepared by the entity itself, and the boards are structured to meet four or five times a year; how can the significant tasks and responsibilities of the board, as stipulated in the entity's regulations, be achieved with such a limited number of meetings?!
The organization of boards of directors in government entities needs review, updating, development, and restructuring. Among the suggestions that can be considered are the following points:
- Decoupling the chairmanship of the authority or center's board from the central entity in the specialization (the ministry). Government authorities and centers are built on clear and defined tasks and competencies, and decoupling from the sector minister will yield benefits in oversight, governance, performance development, accountability, and responsibility. As for the issue of ensuring the unification of policies between the ministry and the authority or center—if the minister is the chair of the board—this is an argument that does not rely on a solid organizational principle. Institutional work is not tied to individuals; the ministry is supposed to set the general policies and strategies for the sector and all its subsidiary institutions, and the independent sub-sectors should operate based on a strategic plan with specific goals and mechanisms, and it suffices for the ministry to be represented by a member on the board.
- Reevaluating the nomination of (representatives) from government entities on the boards of directors, as these do not add anything to the boards and their performance is often characterized by courtesy and mutual interests, with the observation that the number of representatives from government entities on the boards reaches 80% of the members.
- Injecting a new culture into the board system based on achievement by nominating qualified professionals to chair and be members of these boards. Thanks to its investment in human resources, the Kingdom possesses highly qualified talents adept in their specialties and fields of work. Universities and large companies are fertile ground for qualified leadership and talents, and it is possible to nominate specialized talents (in the field and specialization of the entity) who do not have significant and multiple responsibilities so that their efforts and attention can be focused on the work of the board and serving the sector.
- Increasing the minimum number of meetings for the board per year, clearly defining the board's competencies, reducing the delegation of powers to the executive management, activating the principle of accountability and responsibility for board members, and forming an executive management/secretariat for the board that is linked to the chair of the board and not the head of the sector, which will be responsible for preparing topics, organizing them, and drafting the minutes. One of the board members can be nominated to lead this management, ensuring it is independent from the executive management of the entity.
(Vision 2030) touches on this issue and emphasizes the importance of defining competencies to activate responsibility and accountability: "We will work on a continuous and flexible restructuring of our government agencies, eliminating redundant roles, seeking to unify efforts, simplify procedures, and clearly define competencies, and activating the responsibility of entities in assuming their tasks in a manner that allows them to execute and enables accountability."


