CR-106 · Detailed guide · Theme 6

Committee Co-Lead Model

Help the club share committee leadership so knowledge, decisions and workload do not sit with one person.

Where this idea came from

Playbook entry: CR-106 · Committee Co-Lead Model
Theme: Theme 6: Club Renewal · Subtheme 9: Succession & Capability Rebuild
Source material: New Club Renewal index draft plus an internally authored detailed-guide draft

Initiative-specific development wave

How this draft was developed

These sources support general principles for whole-club renewal, accessibility, privacy, safety, systems or responsible governance; they are not an endorsement of Committee Co-Lead Model, a finding that it suits any club or approval of its local design.

Primary references consulted

Learning & Reference - learn by role (Rotary International - My Rotary)
Used for: Rotary's current Learning & Reference hub identifies president and committee roles, links role resources and provides access to role-based learning and training materials.
Engage emerging leaders (Rotary International)
Used for: Rotary encourages clubs to assess club health, ask members what they want, take suggestions seriously, support leadership and provide relevant service and learning experiences.
Governance for good: A guide for Responsible People (Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission)
Used for: Good governance requires understood roles, authorised decision processes, checks and balances, appropriate delegations, written decisions and oversight of finances and operations.
Managing conflicts of interest (Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission)
Used for: Actual, potential and perceived conflicts should be disclosed, recorded and managed by impartial decision-makers under the organisation's governing documents and applicable law.

Candidate District material

No candidate local guide was used for this version. The current initiative identity and the attributed primary references remain separate.

Theme 6 source-assurance wave

What has been checked

4 current primary pages used by this guide were reopened on 9 August 2026.
4 attributed source claim(s) were mapped to their bounded use in this initiative.
Candidate District material remains separate and does not establish this result.

See each source's scope and limit

Learning & Reference - learn by role
Supports: The availability of current Rotary role resources and learning pathways for renewal leadership and capability development.
Does not establish: The duties, delegation, eligibility, appointment method, authority or training completion of a particular person in a particular club.
Engage Emerging Leaders
Supports: Member-centred discovery, mentoring, feedback, emerging-leader support and club-health review principles during renewal.
Does not establish: That a person is ready for office, should be selected, has consented to a role or that a proposed renewal pathway will work locally.
Governance for good: A guide for Responsible People
Supports: Good-governance principles for renewal decisions, roles, delegation, records, accountability, financial oversight and organisational purpose.
Does not establish: That a Rotary club is an ACNC-registered charity, that ACNC duties apply or that a renewal decision complies with the club's governing documents.
Managing conflicts of interest
Supports: Conflict identification, disclosure, recording and impartial management principles for renewal decisions and resource allocation.
Does not establish: That a conflict exists, has been adequately managed or is governed by a particular law, constitution or policy in the club's circumstances.

What still needs a person to confirm

Confirm the club's governing documents, bylaws, membership rules, decision authority, financial position and reserved decisions before changing its operating model.
Confirm which incorporated-association, charity, work health and safety, privacy, safeguarding and other duties apply to the club and this renewal design.
Test the need, accessibility, belonging, workload and alternative participation routes with current, former and prospective members rather than inferring support from the guide.
Confirm every local fact, starting point, measure, cost, owner, community need, capability claim and stopping condition before the club decides to proceed.
Resolve any candidate District-source provenance and approval decision without treating the candidate as controlled authority.

The source-verification release gate remains closed.

Checks still on hold

The controlled current Theme 6 catalogue establishes the code, title and renewal framing; the delivery content remains an internally authored draft pending full-corpus human review.
The connected Drive refresh returned an internal error on 9 August 2026. No unseen file was inferred or promoted; the 7 August intake, duplicate decisions, quarantines, rights boundaries and public-write permission hold remain in force and no sharing was changed.
Before local delivery, the club must approve the decision, participant choices, access arrangements, privacy and records plan, role boundaries, referral or escalation routes, resource limit and the specific control for this boundary: capability development cannot predetermine appointment, give inappropriate access or treat former office holders as permanently responsible.
Formal human review has not started. Committee Co-Lead Model remains an internal initiative-specific draft until all 1,000 initiatives reach the Full-Corpus Review Build and every source, editorial, local-suitability, accessibility and governance gate is resolved.

Still an internal draft: source interpretation, local suitability, accessibility, governance and editorial approval remain open checks.

Why a club might use this

The work is designed to produce an accepted role agreement, current work record and tested handover; the central local boundary is that capability development cannot predetermine appointment, give inappropriate access or treat former office holders as permanently responsible.

Use it when

Use when important work depends on a few experienced people or leadership vacancies are filled at the last minute. Committee Co-Lead Model is most useful when the club is prepared to act on what it learns.
A club where the club can make one honest, authorised change at a time from a shared diagnosis, visible evidence and a scheduled continue, adapt or stop decision.
A club with a real need for a deeper capability bench and capacity to support a transparent role or team model with purpose, authority, workload, selection and handover.
A 90-day trial of Committee Co-Lead Model with a starting point, named participants, a resource ceiling and a scheduled continue, adapt or stop decision.

Before the club starts

A board-approved brief naming which critical roles and skills need at least two prepared people and a current handover, the local authority, people affected, fixed constraints, resource ceiling, decision date and stop conditions.
A starting-point record and participant plan suited to a transparent role or team model with purpose, authority, workload, selection and handover, with accessible information, voluntary choices and a supported alternative route where needed.
Named delivery, evidence and decision owners, including a person authorised to pause Committee Co-Lead Model when a safeguard, permission or boundary is not met.
A proportionate check of governing documents, privacy, information security, accessibility, conflicts, safeguarding, work health and safety, records, finance and referral duties for the actual local design.

Capacity guide

Likely cost: Low; allow for learning materials, accessible participation and occasional training support.
Lead time: Eight to twelve weeks for priority roles, with succession work continuing through the club year.
People: Five to eight people across the board, succession team, role holders and participating members.

A useful club conversation

Questions worth asking

Whose experience, authority, access or safety could be missed if Committee Co-Lead Model is designed only by regular attendees, confident digital users or current leaders?
What would make an accepted role agreement, current work record and tested handover credible enough for the club's decision, and what would still remain uncertain?
What local adaptation would still respect this boundary: Capability development cannot predetermine appointment, give inappropriate access or treat former office holders as permanently responsible.

Common traps

Trying Committee Co-Lead Model when A club with no open decision, no accountable owner, no capacity to act on an accepted role agreement, current work record and tested handover or no safe way to pause the trial.
Proceeding with Committee Co-Lead Model when Committee Co-Lead Model must not be used for a rebrand without operational change, an attempt to blame current or former leaders or a programme that adds more work without stopping or redesigning anything. Capability development cannot predetermine appointment, give inappropriate access or treat former office holders as permanently responsible.
The same small group carries the renewal work and becomes less sustainable. — Use workload gates, role pairing, staged delivery and a stop decision when capacity is not real.

A practical 90-day path

Three milestones for Committee Co-Lead Model
When	What the club does	Evidence to keep
Days 1–30: Agree the local design	Write the decision brief for Committee Co-Lead Model: define which critical roles and skills need at least two prepared people and a current handover, the starting evidence, people affected, local authority, resource limit, success signals and stop conditions. Invite members with varied experiences and affected community partners where appropriate, show what is open or fixed, make access practical and record trade-offs and minority views. Apply this specifically to Committee Co-Lead Model and record which relevant experiences or users are still missing.	An approved decision and boundary brief A participant, access and information-handling plan
Days 31–60: Run and adjust the first version	Build and test a transparent role or team model with purpose, authority, workload, selection and handover for Committee Co-Lead Model; complete the Committee Co-Lead Model Role, Workload and Handover Card, rehearse the boundary wording and confirm who may decide, refer, pause, recover or close the work. Use a time-bounded change with named authority, capacity and stop conditions; compare evidence with the starting point and make unfinished work, unintended effects and resource pressure visible. Capture only the evidence needed to judge whether Committee Co-Lead Model advances a deeper capability bench.	A tested role, workload and handover card and delivery pack A controlled activity and evidence record
Days 61–90: Review the evidence and decide	Compare the evidence with the starting point, validate meaning with affected participants or users, record gaps and unintended effects and prepare an accepted role agreement, current work record and tested handover without overstating what the trial proves. Make and record the authorised continue, adapt, refer, scale or stop decision for Committee Co-Lead Model; explain the reason, complete every action, close unnecessary records and schedule the 90-day follow-up.	An accepted role agreement, current work record and tested handover A published participant response, closed action register and next-step decision

Fit it to the club you have

Small club

Choose one change that releases rather than adds workload, use district or neighbouring-club help and avoid creating roles the club cannot sustain. Apply this specifically to Committee Co-Lead Model, a transparent role or team model with purpose, authority, workload, selection and handover and the club's actual capacity.

Larger club

Use a small portfolio board, clear workstream delegations and one evidence and dependency register so changes do not compete or duplicate effort. Apply this specifically to Committee Co-Lead Model, a transparent role or team model with purpose, authority, workload, selection and handover and the club's actual capacity.

Regional or rural club

Plan around travel, seasonal work, service availability and close-community privacy, and use remote district support where local capability is thin. Apply this specifically to Committee Co-Lead Model, a transparent role or team model with purpose, authority, workload, selection and handover and the club's actual capacity.

Metropolitan, hybrid or online club

Offer several participation routes and times, keep decision records accessible and ensure remote members can shape rather than merely observe the renewal. Apply this specifically to Committee Co-Lead Model, a transparent role or team model with purpose, authority, workload, selection and handover and the club's actual capacity.

Learn, adapt and know when to stop

Evidence worth keeping

Committee Co-Lead Model produces an accepted role agreement, current work record and tested handover by the promised decision date, with evidence limitations, participation gaps and unintended effects stated.
People affected can explain the purpose, their choices, the boundary and how to raise an access, privacy, safety or governance concern.
The trial shows whether a deeper capability bench improved from the recorded starting point without shifting hidden workload, risk or exclusion elsewhere.

Change course when

The club proceeds with Committee Co-Lead Model without respecting this boundary: capability development cannot predetermine appointment, give inappropriate access or treat former office holders as permanently responsible. — Put the boundary in the brief and participant information, give the delivery lead stop authority and move any excluded matter to its responsible process.
Renewal becomes a long list of projects without a shared diagnosis or trade-offs. — Link each change to the agreed health picture, select one priority and record what will pause, stop or wait.
Consultation raises expectations beyond the authority or resources available. — Publish the decision boundary, resource ceiling and timetable and explain every accepted, deferred or declined proposal.

How to put it into practice

Detailed implementation steps for Committee Co-Lead Model
Step	Action	Suggested owner	Timing	Evidence or output
1	Write the decision brief for Committee Co-Lead Model: define which critical roles and skills need at least two prepared people and a current handover, the starting evidence, people affected, local authority, resource limit, success signals and stop conditions.	Club board sponsor and renewal lead	Week one	An approved decision and boundary brief
2	Invite members with varied experiences and affected community partners where appropriate, show what is open or fixed, make access practical and record trade-offs and minority views. Apply this specifically to Committee Co-Lead Model and record which relevant experiences or users are still missing.	Club board sponsor and renewal lead with the access and privacy contacts	Weeks one and two	A participant, access and information-handling plan
3	Build and test a transparent role or team model with purpose, authority, workload, selection and handover for Committee Co-Lead Model; complete the Committee Co-Lead Model Role, Workload and Handover Card, rehearse the boundary wording and confirm who may decide, refer, pause, recover or close the work.	Facilitator and workstream owner	Before the trial	A tested role, workload and handover card and delivery pack
4	Use a time-bounded change with named authority, capacity and stop conditions; compare evidence with the starting point and make unfinished work, unintended effects and resource pressure visible. Capture only the evidence needed to judge whether Committee Co-Lead Model advances a deeper capability bench.	Facilitator and workstream owner	Weeks three to eight	A controlled activity and evidence record
5	Compare the evidence with the starting point, validate meaning with affected participants or users, record gaps and unintended effects and prepare an accepted role agreement, current work record and tested handover without overstating what the trial proves.	Facilitator and workstream owner with an independent reviewer	Within seven days of the trial	An accepted role agreement, current work record and tested handover
6	Make and record the authorised continue, adapt, refer, scale or stop decision for Committee Co-Lead Model; explain the reason, complete every action, close unnecessary records and schedule the 90-day follow-up.	Club board and evidence reviewer	By day 90	A published participant response, closed action register and next-step decision

Controls and safeguards

Make development opportunities visible and voluntary; do not pressure a person into a future role because they accepted a small task.
Keep account access, personal data and formal authority with the authorised role holder while learning and shadowing occur.
The club proceeds with Committee Co-Lead Model without respecting this boundary: capability development cannot predetermine appointment, give inappropriate access or treat former office holders as permanently responsible. — Put the boundary in the brief and participant information, give the delivery lead stop authority and move any excluded matter to its responsible process.
Renewal becomes a long list of projects without a shared diagnosis or trade-offs. — Link each change to the agreed health picture, select one priority and record what will pause, stop or wait.
Consultation raises expectations beyond the authority or resources available. — Publish the decision boundary, resource ceiling and timetable and explain every accepted, deferred or declined proposal.
The same small group carries the renewal work and becomes less sustainable. — Use workload gates, role pairing, staged delivery and a stop decision when capacity is not real.
The controlled current Theme 6 catalogue establishes the code, title and renewal framing; the delivery content remains an internally authored draft pending full-corpus human review.
The connected Drive refresh returned an internal error on 9 August 2026. No unseen file was inferred or promoted; the 7 August intake, duplicate decisions, quarantines, rights boundaries and public-write permission hold remain in force and no sharing was changed.
Before local delivery, the club must approve the decision, participant choices, access arrangements, privacy and records plan, role boundaries, referral or escalation routes, resource limit and the specific control for this boundary: capability development cannot predetermine appointment, give inappropriate access or treat former office holders as permanently responsible.
Formal human review has not started. Committee Co-Lead Model remains an internal initiative-specific draft until all 1,000 initiatives reach the Full-Corpus Review Build and every source, editorial, local-suitability, accessibility and governance gate is resolved.

What to measure

Review Committee Co-Lead Model after 90 days. Look for whether more people are building confidence, key roles have cover and useful knowledge reaches the next owner, and write down one decision the evidence supports.
Committee Co-Lead Model produces an accepted role agreement, current work record and tested handover by the promised decision date, with evidence limitations, participation gaps and unintended effects stated.
People affected can explain the purpose, their choices, the boundary and how to raise an access, privacy, safety or governance concern.
The trial shows whether a deeper capability bench improved from the recorded starting point without shifting hidden workload, risk or exclusion elsewhere.
Every accepted action has an owner, due date and completion evidence, and the club records a reasoned continue, adapt, refer, scale or stop decision.

Follow-up: At the 90-day review, compare the recorded measures with the starting point, resolve the listed governance holds and tell participants whether Committee Co-Lead Model will change, continue or stop.

Made for this initiative

Tailored supporting documents

These working documents use the decisions, safeguards and evidence needs of this initiative. Complete them with the people affected and keep the agreed version with the club's project record.

Committee Co-Lead Model Renewal Decision Brief

Connect the initiative to the agreed diagnosis, decision and capacity.

Open supporting document

Committee Co-Lead Model Member and Stakeholder Participation Plan

Reach the experiences needed for a credible renewal decision.

Open supporting document

Committee Co-Lead Model Current-State and Starting-Point Record

Create an honest baseline before the change begins.

Open supporting document

Committee Co-Lead Model 90-Day Renewal Run Sheet

Sequence one bounded change without overloading the club.

Open supporting document

Committee Co-Lead Model Trade-Off and Stop-Doing Register

Make the capacity released for renewal explicit.

Open supporting document

Committee Co-Lead Model Risk, Dependency and Escalation Register

Keep governance, people, money and partner risks visible.

Open supporting document

Committee Co-Lead Model Renewal Evidence and Decision Record

Close the cycle with evidence, learning and an authorised next step.

Open supporting document

Committee Co-Lead Model Succession & Capability Rebuild Delivery Check

Test whether Committee Co-Lead Model genuinely advances a deeper capability bench within the subtheme boundary.

Open supporting document

Committee Co-Lead Model Role, Workload and Handover Card

Prevent role ambiguity, hidden workload and knowledge dependency.

Open supporting document

Committee Co-Lead Model Evidence, Decision and Close-Out Record

Bring the evidence, limitations, participant response and final decision for Committee Co-Lead Model into one accountable record.

Open supporting document

Related playbook entries

CR-105
CR-107

Supporting worksheets

Before your club says yes

Does the idea fit?

Talk with the people it is meant to serve and check that the need is real.

We have checked this

Who can say yes?

Name the person or group that can approve the work, spending and any safety arrangements.

We have checked this

Are people protected?

Check privacy, consent and safety. Collect only the information you genuinely need.

We have checked this

Can everyone take part?

Check the language, format, place, technology and cost for barriers.

We have checked this

Are the facts and permissions right?

Check names, claims, images, quotations, partner references and Rotary branding.

We have checked this

How will we learn?

Note where things stand now, check in at 30, 60 and 90 days, and decide what to do next.

We have checked this