Monthly Archive for April, 2010

24. Church Board Covenant — Guiding Principles for Board Engagement

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on April 30, 2010 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance and Board Member. Closed Tags: , , .

What principles will your church board use to guide the interactions, relationships, and conduct of each board member? A church board covenant can be very helpful to assist new and continuing board members understand their responsibilities and commitments.

Such a set of principles can provide the board chair with a very useful tool when seeking to facilitate board interactions, as well as orient new board members to their role and responsibility. It also provides a useful point for discussion every several years at a retreat, for example, where the chair can help the board members evaluate their leadership.

If you are developing a church board covenant, you might consider some of the following elements for inclusion:

1. pray daily for members of the church board, the pastoral team and the ministry of our church;

2. speak respectfully about each other in all contexts;

3. address and resolve conflicts quickly and biblically;

4. extend forgiveness when offended and carry no grudges;

5. care for other board members when they are in difficulty;

6. come to board meetings prepared, informed, and in prayerful dependence upon the Holy   Spirit for wisdom;

7. once the board has taken a decision, to support the board. If unable to do so, then be willing to resign;

8. be honest in all board dealings and discussions, voluntarily identifying potential conflicts of interest and never pursuing a personal agenda;

9. hold all board discussions in complete confidence;

10. agree that the board chair speaks for the board;

11. hold one another accountable for this covenant and agree to resign if significant and/or consistent violations of its provisions occurs.

Of course, you might find it helpful to create some variation and include other elements. As you reflect, please share your insights.


23. “Risk” Wisdom — A Key Competence for a Church Board Chair

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on April 19, 2010 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance and Board Member. Closed Tags: , , , .

The board of any non-profit charitable agency constantly engages in risk assessment as it processes various decisions. Church boards have no immunity from such responsibility and the chair, in his or her service to the board, plays a key role in helping the board assess and manage risk.

A church board deals with various kinds of risks — spiritual, legal, financial, congregational, missional. With some kinds of risk the board has to manage the risk through policy and holding a specific person accountable to insuring that the policy is being applied consistently and fairly (e.g. privacy of information, criminal record checks for all volunteers working with children, etc.). Other kinds of risks relate to decision-making and discerning the implications of a particular decision on the health of the congregation or the achievement of the church’s mission. Spiritual risks would be actions taken by the board regarding matters of spiritual conviction that may create tension between the congregation and public policy (e.g. stance regarding marriage).

For example, the church board budget committee brings forward a recommendation that the next fiscal year’s expenditures be increased 15%, even though the pattern of church growth, both in terms of people and giving has not changed in three years. The only rationale provided to support this recommendation is the need to have faith that God will supply. The primary cause for this major increase in expenditure is a ministry focus that one of the more influential board members on the budget committee has a particular interest in. During the discussion no board member seems to be willing to challenge the assumptions or to identify the risk such a budget increase might be to the church, if the congregation should also adopt this recommended budget.

The chair, however, has serious reservations about this recommendation, sensing that it has potential to exhaust the church’s financial reserves and cause significant disruption in the church’s ability to carry forward other segments of its vision. What is the responsibility of the chair in such an instance? In what way can the chair serve the board, exercise appropriate leadership to help the board understand the risk it will be embracing, and help it discern an alternative that carries less risk?

In this example, because this recommendation carries the weight of a significant board member, as the chair may seek to give leadership, there is risk that the board member may become antagonistic, that the board may become divided over the issue, that the chair may be accused of “lacking faith,” etc. The chair does not have an easy path to follow in such cases.

If you are or have been a board chair, you will know what I am describing because you probably have been there.  I wonder how you handled such situations?

Risk management is part of any board’s life. So one of the strategies a chair might employ is to help the board educate itself to identify, assess and deal with risk. Some board members probably give little thought to this matter. However, the whole board has responsibility to manage risk and the chair as its servant has to facilitate its ability to fulfill this responsibility. So, I suggest you be proactive and start with some education. Circulate a short article to the board about a board’s responsibility in such matters and then present a case study from a situation your board had to deal with where risk was potentially significant. Make sure the example is a year or two old so that it does not re-ignite latent emotions.

Second, as chair you might find out what policies the board has developed and suggest, if necessary, that the board begin to review them, bring them up-to-date, and make sure they are being implemented. This means some sort of reporting mechanism will need to be developed.

Third, you might suggest that the board review annually its liability insurance to ensure that board members, employees and volunteers are protected appropriately from specific risks.

Fourth, you might explore with your board how it would guide the congregation in dealing with matters of member discipline. Unfortunate as these situations might be, they do occur and often church boards are caught by surprise in these matters, never having thought in advance what process might be most helpful in overseeing such cases. Being proactive in introducing such discussions enables the chair to help the board avoid foolish mistakes that might harm the congregation and the specific parties involved.

A church board’s responsibility is not to manage risk on a day-to-day basis, but to oversee risk management and make sure that appropriate policies, accountability and reporting are in place and working. It seems that for church boards employee issues, member discipline actions, and financial management present the greatest risk. Privacy rights, harassment protection, and possible criminal behaviour of employees or volunteers (i.e. child molestation) require boards to insist that appropriate policies are in place and are being followed conscientiously. To write and approve policy but fail to implement or require accountability from the primary employees (i.e. ministry staff), is a formula for disaster. And all such policies must be consistent with current legal requirements.

But other kinds of risks, not of the legal variety, also challenge a church board. These relate to matters of spiritual health, mission fulfillment, and member-care. As a church board is making decisions, it must continually ask itself — will this decision truly advance the mission, will it build unity within the congregation, will it add value and bring help to those the church is seeking to serve, will it damage the reputation of the church in the community, will it enable the church to be a good employer? The chair serves to help the board remember to ask such questions and not to avoid the hard questions, no matter how heavily supported the proposal might be by some board members or others in the church.

In helping the board manage risk, the chair requires both spiritual intelligence and emotional intelligence, plus a strong sense of responsibility to his or her role as servant of the board. Sometimes it requires considerable boldness to stop proceedings and ask the tough question. The chair must be thinking about the implications of all church board actions and the risks inherent in each one. This requires forward thinking, a sense of the current congregation’s ethos, and good preparation for each meeting — as well as considerable prayer for God’s wisdom and protection.

The initial period of worship that should begin every church board meeting becomes an important opportunity to help the board members recalibrate their minds and hearts to the church’s mission so that their deliberations and decisions truly occur with the best interests of the church in full view.

22. Holding a Church Board Accountable — A Challenging Task for Any Chair

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on April 12, 2010 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance and Board Member. Closed Tags: , , , , .

Human beings tend to resist accountability, both individually and corporately. Our sense of our rights or emotional engagement in discussion often trumps attempts to urge self-control or group-control. In the rough and tumble of debate hasty words or actions can betray our commitments to the mission and values. A church board entrusts to its chair the responsibility to hold it accountable to exemplify Christian virtue and good process.

But how does a church board chair do this — and still conserve and nurture the relational coherence of the board? I would suggest several key strategies:

1. Board covenant — how it chooses to play the game. The board is the only group that can set the rules that govern its internal processes. Yet few church boards consciously articulate the key principles that guide their operations. Unspoken tradition, personal assumptions, or adhoc process tends to set direction. One of the essential things a church board chair should lead the board to do is create a covenant — a statement developed by the board that defines how the board will operate. It does not need to be long or complex. It should include the basic expectations that the board has for a board member’s participation in board business, the primary means by which decisions are made, and how the board will evaluate its performance. With this in hand, the chair has a framework defined by the board. It can be referenced when the chair needs to bring order to the board’s business or a board’s member’s behaviour.

2. Board conduct — how it actually plays the game. The board appoints a chair in order to enable the board accomplish its work. The chair helps the board play the game well by insuring that agendas are circulated in advance, that good minutes are kept and referenced, and that the business is conducted in a fair way so that each board member has opportunity to speak to the issues. However, the chair also has the authority from the board to exercise direction in the board’s actions if the chair thinks that the board is violating its own operational principles. From time to time the chair will have to intervene in heated debate. At other times the chair will need to prompt the board to make tough decisions. Sometimes the chair will have to discern that the board does not have the information it needs to make an informed decision and help the board get that data.

3. Board education — how it can learn to play the game better. Board education is a continuous activity. Board members can develop better skills to insure that their interactions are productive for board work. The chair can suggest new procedure or find resources that the board can review and discuss. Sometimes boards will appoint one of their members to evaluate a meeting and share with the board his or her views on how well the board was operating and where it might improve. If your board takes five minutes at the end of each meeting to evaluate how the meeting went, often suggestions will be given that, if implemented, can enhance the board’s work. Just asking the question “how can we do this better” will encourage board members to be more self-conscious about their work together.

Above all the chair consciously is aware that the board’s work is a significant means of worship, i.e. loving God with heart, mind, soul and strength and loving one’s neighbour as yourself. Keeping these principles in mind can help the chair discern how well the board is working and provide insights that will enable it to work together more effectively and efficiently. Attention to this matter will also increase the board member’s personal satisfaction in his or her participation in this ministry team.

Does your church board have a “Board Covenant”? Would you be willing to send me a copy that I could put under the “Resources” section of this website? Church board chairs who are seeking to draft a covenant to guide their board’s operations would find it helpful. If you are willing, send me a message in the “Leave A Reply” box following. Thanks.

21. Decision-making In Church Board Meetings #1: Working with Bias

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on April 7, 2010 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance and Board Member. Closed Tags: , , .

Church board members have significant investment — spiritually, emotionally, and eternally — in the decisions they make collectively as “the board.” From their wealth of experience, wisdom and expertise board members work hard to achieve good decisions that promote the health of their churches. The chair plays a particularly significant role in facilitating the board’s ability to achieve spiritually-wise, ethical, strategic decisions.

Yet in the midst of every important decision a church board engages lurks a myriad of biases that batter the process like turbulent winds. Every board member brings these biases into the room, including the chair and lead pastor. Biases are human realities, but some can be beneficial, while others have potential for serious harm.

People’s biases emerge from culture, from experience, from their domains of expertise, or from influential individuals or groups. In the case of believers, there is the additional challenge of theological diversity. Where and how a person matured as an adult will embed certain biases. If a person has had a bad experience in working with a specific product, she will be very reluctant to support a board decision to use it in church matters. Or, the accountant who also serves as a board member will bring to financial discussions, and rightly so, the professional biases shaping that domain of expertise. And then some board members may feel that they ‘represent’ in some way the interests of a particular congregational segment and so they engage board discussions with a bias towards the interests of that segment.

Probably the most difficult kind of ‘bias’ board chairs have to work with is theological diversity. One can expect that on the basic theological issues  considerable unity is present, given the faith-based nature of a local church. However, often the spiritual or ethical issues that church boards consider are not directly addressed by scripture or historically the church has developed various responses. A chair will require significant spiritual wisdom in such cases to help the board reach consensus.

How then does a church board chair help the board control or balance out its biases or assumptions? First, the chair should realize that a person’s bias can motivate him or her positively to advocate for a certain direction, to have boldness in speaking within the board, or to share significant insights. Second, the passion that often accompanies such a bias needs to be controlled lest it provoke the board member to speak inappropriately. Passion’s good, but needs to be directed well. Third, the chair should help the board to find ways to discuss various options, but not to rush to a conclusion too quickly. The chair might work to assemble the insights board members have regarding the options, but urge the members not to reach or communicate their conclusions too soon, because it will shut down discussion. Make a list of what’s good and bad about each option before a judgment is sought. This encourages the board to function as a unit, evaluating the merits of an option and not engaging in debate about the conclusion that one member has proposed. Fourth, as chair, keep your observations and conclusions to yourself until the board has opportunity to express their views. If you think it is important to share your opinion, carefully distinguish it as “your” opinion, not the opinion of the “chair” of the board.

As chair you have the authority and responsibility to make sure that the board’s deliberations proceed with spiritual maturity. Often one board member will call to account another board member if he or she thinks the boundaries of propriety have been breached. Building sufficient trust among the board members is critically important to foster and enable such “fierce conversations.” Here again the commitment on the part of each board person to maintaining confidentiality is essential.

One last note — when bias threatens to lead the board to act illegally, unethically, or imprudently, then the chair has to warn the board that it is acting inappropriately and call it to account.