by Herman Manson (@marklives) The Digital Media & Marketing Association (DMMA) earlier this year announced a new management structure that saw an elected Executive Committee replaced by an appointed steering committee. However, it had neglected to update its constitution, which requires a 75% vote in support by members, before doing so.
Currently the DMMA constitution requires members to elect a Chairperson, a Deputy Chairperson and six additional Members from their ranks to serve a one-year term of office. “These elected persons, totalling 8 (eight) persons, will form the Execo,” according to the DMMA constitution.
“The Execo will be entitled, but not obliged, from time to time to co-opt such additional members to the Execo as the Execo may deem 
appropriate, to assist the Execo with specified projects. Such co-opted members shall not, for the purpose of this Constitution, be deemed to be members of the Execo,” the document reads.
This seems at odds with the current, revised structure of the DMMA, which now contains an Executive Director (for which no function exists in the DMMA constitution), a Chairperson and a team of eight other members on an appointed steering committee.
Previously the DMMA Executive Committee effectively functioned as its board, which is not the case of the current Steering Committee. It sits below a Board of three members who are Nikki Cockcroft (DMMA Executive Director & Head of Bookmarks), Jarred Cinman (Director and Chair of Steering Committee) and Theresa Vitale (Director).
Cockcroft, who has a lengthy affiliation with the DMMA, and Cinman were both elected (in the case of Cockcroft re-elected) Execo members of the DMMA in 2012. Vitale is a full time employee at the DMMA. According to Cinman he and Cockcroft became the only defacto board members of the DMMA after none of their colleagues on the 2012 board made themselves available for re-election (Cockcroft notes “A few stepped down and no response from others”). The exception was Gustav Goosen who stayed on in the Research Role and is part therefore part of the appointed Steering Commitee but who doesn’t sit on the board. The AGM, which should have taken place in January, was postponed to August, and according to Cinman so then did the mandate of its remaining Execo members (The DMMA constitution provides only for one year terms for Execo members – ed.) .
The DMMA, a section 21 (not for profit) company, is in its own words “a member-driven voluntary association seeking to grow the digital industry.” It represents over 189 members including 96 local online publishers and over 93 agencies.
The thinking behind the appointment of a steering committee was explained in a FAQ post on the DMMA website in January. “In the past we have voted in an Executive Committee at the AGM held in January, but history has shown us that even though the Exco has the best of intentions we find ourselves in a position where some portfolios are not looked after throughout the year as a result of the much needed time and commitment,” the post reads. “As a non-profit organisation with a rapidly growing member base it is pertinent to relook at how we appoint the right committee, as we are 100% dependent on this team to drive the annual initiatives.”
DMMA Executive Chair Nikki Cockcroft says a larger revamp of the DMMA constitution is being investigated and the (reduced) Board did not want to make piecemeal changes. She was surprised to hear that there had been complaints about the way the new Steering committee was appointed, saying that during initial discussions no DMMA members had raised red flags on the proposed changes.
Cinman says the option was to hold an AGM and election in January or to hold the course in the interim while the organisation ensured it met all legislation governing Section 21 companies. As no members raised any concerns, he and Cockcroft decided to follow the current route.
Part of the reasoning was that some portfolios had been not been delivering. Effectively this resulted in the organisation as a whole under performing. “We were not meeting the mandate if our members with our previous structure,” says Cinman. Cinman certainly believe that without their intervention there would be no DMMA left to serve members.
At the upcoming AGM in August members will vote on a number of changes which will proposed to the DMMA constitution, including that members elect the Board, which in turn will appoint the Steering Committee, in line with the changes that have already been implemented on an organisational level.
The extension of the mandate of only two Execo members for eight months and the appointment of a steering committee as well as a third director without a vote by members does not seem to have caused much of an uproar amongst the DMMA membership (Cockcroft notes that she considers the email and other notices sent out to members on the structural changes to the organisation, and the lack of subsequent feedback, as indicating permission from DMMA members to proceed with the changes).
Either members believe that the revised, temporary structure will lift the organisation to finally delivering fully on its mandate, as suggested by its current leadership, or it suggests that members no longer view the DMMA as an industry body of influence.
Right of reply: MarkLives offered the DMMA Board a Right of Reply to this article. Nikki Cockcroft made the following notes in reply:
Cockcroft notes that she serves as Executive Chairwoman (rather than Executive Director) of the DMMA “as elected by members and as per the constitution I will be in place until voting at the AGM later in the year.” She notes that Jarred Cinman is the Deputy Chair (rather than the Chair) of the Steering Commitee. [The DMMA constitution states that terms in office are limited to one year. “There shall be one annual general meeting not less than once every calendar year, which meeting will be held not less than ten months and not more than fourteen months after the previous annual general meeting, and Members will be given at least 14 days’ notice of such meeting”. The DMMA website identifies* Cockcroft as ‘DMMA Executive Director & Head of Bookmarks’ and Cinman as a ‘Director and Chair of the Steering Commitee.’]
Cockcroft notes that ‘An email was sent to all members for feedback and comment on the new structure, a notice was put on the website and we had a special meeting held at industry events in JHB, CPT and DBN.’ [The DMMA constitution notes “This Constitution, or any part thereof, may be altered by a resolution passed by not less than 75% of the Members present in person (including via a teleconferencing link) or by proxy and entitled to vote at a general meeting or a special meeting convened for this purpose, provided that notice of the proposed amendment is given to members not less than 14 days before the date of the meeting”.]
‘I like to deliver results and I believe we needed to make a few changes to ensure that we did exactly that,’ Cockcroft concludes.
* See screen grabs below:
– Industry news you’ll make time for. Sign up for our free newsletter!
I could be wrong, but to call this a governance crisis seems to be a bit of hyperbole.
Herman, don’t you have some real journalism to do rather than trying to sully the reputation of people who have worked thanklessly to build this industry? Shame on you.
Unsubscribe!
Finally! Someone had the guts to say something! Not sure if people are too scared to speak up or just don’t care enough. Thank you Herman!
We are members and I cannot recall being invited to a meeting to vote for a change to the constitution or asked for feedback in this regard. We received an email detailing the changes that have taken place and that is the only correspondence received on the matter. As paying members we have a right to a democratic vote as per the DMMA’s current constitution. When did the DMMA become a Dictatorship?
I actually agree that it was rather dubious of them to have taken such an important decision (as changing their constitution) so lightly. To be honest, I think it was arrogance rather than malice that has landed them in this situation. Popular opinion of the DMMA has been rather contemptuous of late. And for them to think that a tacit agreement from their 189 paying members would justify them making these sort of decisions, it’s little wonder why.. I myself feel they’ve lost sight of the organisation’s initial goals and as a member I really never feel the body’s influence in our daily functions within the industry. Soooo, not sure what we’re paying for anymore.
Good article, and quite correct.
@Mike – if you had been to at least the last 2 bookmarks and the regional workshops, you can see that the DMMA was exhibiting cult-like behaviour.
WOW. It is so true in that people have been working hard – no question about that and in fact done so for years, but I also think they have lost their ways and now become a vehicle for self PR’ing and celebrity status! Similar to the Bookmarks! You all know who is going to win!
Herman thank you for bringing to life in such a direct and informative article. Keep it up.
Any member of the DMMA should feel to contact me at any time to discuss concerns or complaints with the way the organisation is being run. My email address is jarred [AT] native.co.za and my office number is (011) 555-3800. I am 100% available to members whenever you want to speak to me and I am willing to meet and hear you out on any of these, or other, issues at any time.
To be clear: apart from the anonymous comments posted to this article and one email from one particular member which Nikki and I dealt with directly in January, we have received no emails or phone calls from members raising any doubts or concerns about the organisation or the leadership. We cannot manage the DMMA via a comments board.
So please – pick up the phone, send an email, let’s sit down and have a constructive discussion. I can explain what our strategy and plans are, where we are at with the financial and administrative process and why you should be feeling positive about where the DMMA is heading.
Thank you to Herman for raising this issue – hopefully it will result in members who have remained silent speaking up and giving us a change to engage with them.
Jarred, an interesting response. However given the DMMA’s reluctance of late to abide by its own constitution what validity do your ascertations hold? Moreover surely as a not for profit entity with a broad array of contributory stakeholders, information as to the body’s “strategy and plans” should be in the public domain and not only accesible via a private phone call to yourself? Despite appreciating your taking the time to publicly comment on this piece and the subsequent discussions I must support the above call for an immediate convening of the members to conduct a transparant public vote either in support or defence of recent unilateral changes to the constitution. I would go as far as to submit that through this action alone can the DMMA regain its credibility after this embarrasing fiasco.
Very well said @Another concerned DMMA Member. @Jarred Cinman I think it’s very clear that the main concern here is: “Changes have been made that contradict the constitution”. Calling for individual conversations with members will not solve this problem. Another concerned DMMA Member hit the nail on the head. Call the required meeting so the paying members can have their say in the format prescribed by the constitution.
Another problem that I can foresee with Jarred’s proposal, and the reason I think nobody has spoken out about this until now, is that many of the DMMA members are small online publishers that rely on advertiser revenue to keep their doors open. Advertiser revenue that is controlled for the most part by the larger agencies that most most high ranking DMMA members belong to. Given [MarkLives reserves the right to edit or delete comments attacking individuals. We have exercised that right here.] behaviour towards people who have spoken out against the body in the past I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if these publishers suddenly find themselves excommunicated from our very small digital community. Then there is the further threat of being automatically disregarded for a bookmark award. Which is sadly the only platform for recognition in SA. I would suggest a voting system based on anonymity to ensure all members are heard.
@Devon, you realize you just described the basic tenants under which a cult would operate.
@Herman, have you removed posts relating to the DMMA exco as you fear their ability to influence your sponsors decisions re your websites patronage?
@Confused I’ve not removed any posts on this thread. I have edited out personal attacks on named individuals. If you are going to go there have the balls to use your full name. It seems only fair.
If sponsors pack up because we deliver on our promise of independent journalism I’m not going to cry a bucket.
Thanks Herman. For your information the right to annonymous free speech is protected. However the point I am making via my question actually relates to Devon’s comments and although you may not see the longevity of advertiser relations as necessary many DMMA publisher members do and undoubtedly this is the singular largest reason there exists the lack of complaint that Jarred speaks of. Thank you for an excellent piece of journalism, I am pleased it has sparked such a long overdue discussion.
The unfortunate part is that the person who made the call to change the constitution and appoint herself for another term without member approval cannot be singled out here. The entire article is about the governance crisis at the DMMA. How do you avoid referring to the individual in charge and responsible for everything mentioned in the article?
I’m only editing out personal attacks not legitimate criticism. For example “X has dog breath” will be deleted (it does not contribute to the debate) while “X is responsible for the situation and haven’t handled it well” is considered a legitimate criticism.
Good governance is as important as ‘getting things done’ – in the eyes of the law even more so. The constitution of the DMMA demands its Chairperson upholds the constitution of the organisation. This is not being done – whatever the reason. All the processes now underway at the DMMA could and should have happened under the auspices of an elected board with a mandate for change.