Monthly Archive for December, 2011

107. Case Study #4: The Case of the Unrecorded Minute — A Chair’s Nightmare.

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on December 26, 2011 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance, Board Member and Senior Pastor. 0 Comments Tags: , , .

[In all case studies the names and incidents are fictional and have no connection with any specific persons, board or congregation.]

About a year ago the church board had a rather vigorous discussion about hiring a part-time worship pastor. Up to that point in the congregation’s history worship leaders were volunteers. The pastoral staff had presented the proposal, but only minimal details were in writing. The position description and qualifications seemed appropriate to the board members at that time. The lead pastor was authorized to oversee the recruiting process and to make the decision regarding the hiring, based upon the position description and qualifications approved by the board, which included the salary and benefits to be provided.

Jack, the board member who had made the motion to approve the proposal, had raised the issue of whether the position would be gender specific or not. The lead pastor indicated that according to current church employment policy it would not be gender specific. Jack, however, because he believed the position would involve some teaching of the congregation and it carried the designation ‘pastor’  felt that it would be appropriate for the position to be filled by a male. Jack thought in making the motion he had made that quite clear. The motion as it appeared in the official minutes, however, did not reflect that perspective. At the following meeting when those minutes were approved, no one said anything or sought to correct the minutes, not even Jack.

Several months later the lead pastor announced to the board that he had hired a person for the position.  The board members were quite excited, anticipating God’s provision for a rather important role within the congregation. When her name was announced, Jack was stunned. Jack was a detail person and usually brought his file of past board minutes to every board meeting in case he felt a need to refer to prior board actions. He quickly brought out his thick file folder and began leafing through the minutes until he located the minute concerning this new position. To his dismay he discovered that the minute said nothing about gender specificity. He then began to look through his copy of board policies and again discovered that no policy required gender specificity for any ministry staff position, except that of lead pastor. Despite his presumption in making the motion that the minute would include some notation regarding his intent for this role to be gender specific, this aspect of the motion was not included in the minute.

When Jack asked to speak, the chair expected that he would join with other board members in congratulating the lead pastor on completing this project and hiring a well-qualified candidate. However, when Jack began to speak the chair knew immediately a more serious issue was in play, namely the accuracy of the board minutes and determining what decision the board in fact had made when it approved the motion. With some emotion Jack explained to the board what he believed had happened and how his understanding of the motion had not adequately been expressed in the minute, even though he thought he had made his intentions quite clear at the time. Bob, a close friend of Jack, spoke and affirmed that this was his understanding as well. However, two other board members objected because in their opinion the minute was clear and expressed what the board had decided. When the lead pastor indicated that he would not have voted for a motion that in his view violated board policy, the chair knew that the board was in a serious predicament.

The chair had worked hard to help the board understand that approved minutes, recording the board’s decision, were the official record that expressed the mind of the board. What a specific board member thought the board had decided was in fact irrelevant — the minutes, once approved and signed by the board chair or secretary, became the official record available for public perusal. When the chair spoke for the board, the minutes became his primary guide for discerning the board’s direction. The chair quickly reviewed the minutes from that earlier meeting and discerned in fact that the minute recording the motion made no reference to gender preference. However, the chair also knew that Jack had raised this question because he found a brief notation about this in the personal notes he had taken during that meeting. Those notes were not official in any sense.

What leadership could the chair provide in such a situation? The hire was already made and could not be reversed without significant repercussions. The chair also knew that Jack could tender his resignation as a board member over this issue. His friend Bob might feel constrained to do the same. The lead pastor felt that the person hired would do a good job and had no intention of reversing his decision, which he believed aligned with board policy and the motion as it appeared in the official minutes.

What advice would you give to this board chair?

******************************************

1. Hindsight is always helpful. This case highlights the importance for the chair to make sure that board members have in fact read the minutes and agreed that they truly represent the decision made by the board. Often this part of the board’s work gets treated in a perfunctory manner, especially when consent agendas are the norm. The board chair would be wise, when the board reaches that point in the agenda for approving minutes, to pause and very deliberately ask the board members whether they have read the minutes are in agreement with them. It becomes very difficult to correct matters retrospectively.

2. Two conflicting dynamics affect the treatment of minutes within a church board. On the one hand, church board members like to operate with a certain informality and comraderie. If the chair acts too officiously, they often bristle at the strictures being imposed. On the other hand, board operations are important legal activities that have to proceed with due diligence. This requires formality at times, regardless of what some board members would like. It is the chair who has to find the right balance in these matters and help the board to attend to both equally well.

3. According to Robert’s Rules of Order once an approved motion has been executed, partially or completely, then no motion to reconsider or rescind can be entertained, particularly if a contract has been entered into because of the motion. If your church board or congregation has adopted Robert’s Rules of Order, then the motion as passed and implemented cannot be reconsidered or rescinded. Even if the motion could be reconsidered, probably too much time has passed for this action legitimately to occur. Even though an error may have been or miscommunication has occurred, the board’s motion cannot be changed at that point. All that can be done, it would seem, is for the board to reaffirm or change its policy for future reference, provide explanation to the congregation about the error that was made, and live with the consequences.

4. It is clear in this case that the board members were unfamiliar with the policy that guided the hiring of ministry staff. When the board is dealing with new decisions, the chair should ensure that the board is aware of any policy that applies to the decision and should have it reviewed by the entire board. This educates the board with respect to policy, reminds the board that policy was formed for the board’s guidance, and enables the board to evaluate whether the recommendation is consistent with current policy. If it is not, the board can change policy, amend the recommendation so that it aligns with policy, or reject the recommendation because it is inconsistent with policy. This is also a good reminder that all policies should be placed on a regular cycle of review and revision. A three year cycle is recommended and each new policy should include a date when it should be reviewed.

5. How should the chair help Jack and Bob come to terms with this situation? A friendly discussion about the relationship between a board member’s personal views and the policies established by the board seems to be in order. A normal operating procedure for a board member is to work within board policies. The chair can suggest ways and means by which a board member can request a review of board policy, if he/she thinks the current policy is not coherent with the congregation’s statement of faith or can be improved in some areas.

6. Perhaps as well the chair should take note that some of the responsibility for the current situation does lie with him. As his personal notes indicate, he knew when Jack made the motion that he had certain understandings which were in conflict with board policy. Knowing this, he should have advised Jack in the board meeting that his motion could not be entertained because it violated current board policy. If he wanted to make the motion as he intended, then he first needed to move an amendment to the current board policy. If the board agreed with the amendment, then his motion regarding the hiring of the worship pastor could then have been considered. If the chair was not aware of the policy, then this raises the question whether there are other board policies of which that chairperson is ignorant. He should make a note to review all policies to make sure he is knowledgeable of the board’s directions so that he can facilitate their decision-making appropriately.

106. A Church Board Building Cycle — Guidance for the Chair

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on December 19, 2011 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance, Board Member and Senior Pastor. 0 Comments Tags: , .

Recruiting, educating and forming a church board into an effective ministry team presents a most significant challenge for every chairperson. Exercising appropriate direction in this process can be tricky, requiring wisdom, discernment, and tact. As well, success in this aspect of board work often hinges upon personal credibility as a board leader and confidence of the congregation in your leadership.

Boardsource, an organization that seeks to resource non-profit entities, suggests that an effective and continuing board building cycle involves eight elements: identify, cultivate, recruit, orient, involve, educate, rotate and evaluate. In my view these eight elements, each of which is important, can be condensed into three broader issues:

1. how do we equip and bring people into a church board ministry (identify, cultivate, recruit);

2. how do we help board members work competently and spiritually during their terms (orient, involve, educate);

3. how do we help board member finish their involvement in this ministry well (rotate and evaluate)?

Euipping people for church board involvement and working within congregational processes to have them appointed to the board are somewhat uncharted waters for many chairpersons ministering in Evangelical congregations. If some in the congregation perceive that the current church leadership is seeking to pick and choose who will serve as board members, they may label this as political inference or manipulation of the congregation’s direction. Complete separation between the actions of the nominating committee and the current church leadership is considered a matter of integrity. However, practically and biblically such a stance has little to commend it. The congregation benefits normally from the discernment that spiritually mature leaders bring to such appointments. Any system can be abused and manipulated, but where church leaders are demonstrating integrity and acting in the best interests of the congregation and not for personal gain or power, it is helpful for them to give some guidance in the selection process. The question is how to do this in a way that fits within usual congregational process.

As board chair you know the various giftings, competencies, and spiritual wisdom that the board needs to provide strategic leadership. While you work as best you can with the board members appointed by the congregation, you also know that careful and appropriate recruitment can make an immense difference in the ability of the board to do its work. Some ways to accomplish this would include having some discussion among the current board members about their sense of emerging leaders within the congregation. Hold this conversation several months before the annual general meeting. There will probably be some concensus about two or three people that are gaining a reputation for spiritual wisdom and maturity. After consulting with the lead pastor and personal prayer, you might take some initiative and have coffee with one or two of these people that you personally believe have the qualifications (i.e. 1 Timothy 3) to serve. The purpose of the conversation is to explore this possibility with them. Most will be reluctant to consider this and will need encouragement. However, during the conversation, if your initial perspective is being confirmed, you might challenge the individual to pray about this opportunity. A week or so later followup and see whether the person would be willing to have their name given to the nominating committee for consideration. As chair you are a member of the church and can nominate people, but you might find it prudent to enlist the services of another board member to forward the name to the nominating committee.

Some congregations implement a more formal process. They empower the board members and pastors to ask four to six people, who have demonstrated the basic qualifications of 1 Timothy 3, to gather for some initial training and discernment, with a view to serving as church board members. While it is clear that involvement in such a process carries no guarantee that they will be nominated and appointed, it is understood that normally from this group the nominating committee will be seeking several to present to the congregation to serve as board members. However this is done, it is important to keep the process transparent.

Once the congregation appoints a person to the church board, then the issues involved in the second question become significant — how to help board members work competently and spiritually during their terms. The foundation for this will be a good orientation process, necessary to bring new board members into the world and work of the board. This will include developing relationships with current board members, instruction on the board’s mandate, modes of operation, and current priorities. As well, make sure the new members know the cycle of meetings planned for the coming year so that they build the dates into their personal schedules. Give clear direction as to expectations and ensure that all necessary documents are signed, i.e. agreement with code of conduct, congregational statement of faith, lack of prior criminal activity that otherwise would void their candidacy for board service.

There is also the ongoing educational development of the board  members — new and continuing. One of the keys to keeping board members motivated is to help them develop as leaders through their work as board members. The more they understand the nature of church boards, church governance, and the leadership of non-profit organizations, the better qualified they will feel to do their work. As they work effectively as a ministry team, their personal motivation will increase and grow. They will get excited about the way the mission is advancing and be willing to communicate this to others in the congregation.

Finally, the day will come when a board member’s term reaches its conclusion. How will you as chair prepare that individual to finish well? How will you gather the wisdom such a person has accumulated and retain it for the benefit of the continuing board? How will you celebrate that member’s contribution and appropriately thank them before the congregation for their ministry? Responding well to such issues will go a long way to encouraging others in the congregation to be willing to serve as board members.

As board chair it is important that you meet personally and individually with board members as their terms complete. This becomes your opportunity to thank them for their contribution, to discern what wisdom they can provide to the continuing board members, and to encourage them to get involved in some other congregational ministry as they move forward. This also provides you with the chance to give them some feedback on their board work. This might prove immensely helpful as other opportunities for them to work with non-profit entities, Christian or otherwise, arise.

Building a church board is a constant ministry. As chair this is one of your most important responsibilities. No one else can do it as effectively as you can. If it is done well, this can be one of your most important legacies to your congregation.

 

 

 

105. Case Study #3: Downloading to the Next Generation

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on December 12, 2011 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance, Board Member and Senior Pastor. 0 Comments Tags: , .

[In all case studies the names and incidents are fictional and have no connection with any specific persons, board or congregation.]

When the audit committee reported to the church board that there was a surplus of $15,000 in the prior year’s financial operation, the board members felt immensely grateful to God for his wonderful provision. Nothing like this had happened in recent experience and it was another indicator that spiritual health was returning to the church family. The board chair knew that the board would have to formulate a recommendation for the use of these funds that could be presented to the annual general meeting which was six weeks away.

The chair wondered at the irony of this situation. On the one hand God’s gracious provision was evident. On the other hand he knew from previous discussions in the board meetings that reaching consensus on what to do with these funds would prove difficult. Two members of the board believed that it was not right for the church to have financial reserves. In their view, if God gave the funds, these needed to be expended as soon as possible on ministry activities. Further, if in the future a financial crisis arose, God would at that point bring the resources through the faithful response of his people. Their theology seemed sound and many precedents could be cited to support their position.

Conversely, several members of the board were business owners and they knew the importance of building some reserves to carry a business through ‘rainy day’ periods. They firmly believed in God’s ability to provide, but also believed that God required them to exercise wise stewardship of the resources once provided. They too could provide theological warrant and precedent for their perspective.

At this point in its history the congregation had no financial reserves. If a financial emergency occurred, then some ministry staff probably would have to be laid off in order to sustain the congregation. As well, a recent building renovation had left a debt of $300,000 which for a congregation of 150 people would probably take four to six years to repay. They were managing now, but the building was mortgaged to support the debt and if a financial downturn occurred, who knew what the creditors would do. Further, if some serious repair became necessary, there were no funds to pay for it.

The chair himself believed that it would be prudent for the board to give leadership in developing a contingency fund equal to two of three months of the church’s normal operational budget. The current budget was $25,000 per month and so this principle, if acted upon, would require a contingency fund in the range of $50,000 to $75,000. In addition, even though the church building recently was renovated, there were no funds being set aside to pay for replacing equipment or carpets, repainting, or other things necessary to maintain the facility properly. The current generation was using the facility, but not paying for its maintenance. In essence they were downloading these costs to the next generation. He thought good stewardship required the board to lead the congregation in setting aside $5,000 a year to cover such replacement and facility renewal costs. He had shared with the board his concerns previously and suggested that a combined contingency and replacement fund could be established over a three to four year period through careful financial management that would create such a fund. However, significant voices in the board had not responded very positively to his suggestions. Maybe this unexpected $15,000 surplus could form the initial basis for such a fund.

So now the debate would be joined again, as the board would have to formulate a recommendation to the congregation about the use of these surplus funds. He was not sure as chair how hard he should push his proposals, even though he knew it was the prudent thing to do. Five years ago when the church was enjoying some surplus the practice had developed of giving the surplus away, or as some called it “tithing,” to some external ministry.The pastor always seemed to favour this kind of direction.

What leadership was he going to provide  to the board members about this?

Possible responses:

1. As chair he could present his viewpoint during the board’s discussion and see what the response would be. He could emphasize again the need for this current generation to exercise appropriate stewardship for its use of the facility. It might be positive or negative, but whatever the board decided, at least he had tried, even if they rejected the idea.

2. Another tact might be to introduce the concepts again and encourage the board to recommend that 50% of the surplus be used to initiate such a fund and that the rest be used in accord with previous patterns. This would get the fund established with $7500 as seed money. It would be a good start and could build consensus between the two views.

3. Another direction the chair could take would be to talk with the leader of the board audit committee and seek his advice. For example, did the auditor support the establishment of a contingency fund and would this lead the auditor to alter his report, upgrading his estimate of the financial health of the congregation? Further, he might have a side conversation with the lead pastor suggestion the consequences to his ministry leadership should cut backs to staff become necessary because the church had no resources to weather a financial crisis. This might encourage his support of a modest investment in a contingency fund. In other words some quiet work in the background might enable some board members to see the prudence of such a direction in a new light and be willing to give it support. Board education is a continuing exercise. He might even ask the chair of the audit committee to lead the charge on this issue.

 

104. Does the Lead Pastor have to be the Preaching Pastor?

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on December 5, 2011 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance, Board Member and Senior Pastor. 0 Comments Tags: .

A few weeks ago I noted this question was being googled and it led someone to the Churchboardchair.ca  site as a possible resource. As I reflected on this question from the standpoint of  a church board chair, it raised some interesting complexities. For example, what does the preaching function have to do with serving as the chief executive officer of a ministry agency like the church? In a seminary, for example, the president does not have to be a faculty person, teaching the curriculum, in order to be president, nor does the leader of a missions organization have to be serving literally as a church planter or evangelist in order to be that mission’s CEO. Often it is helpful for their success if such leaders have significant experience in these roles before becoming the chief executive officer.

Another question might be:  where in the New Testament does it require all elders to be preachers? They are to be capable teachers of the word of God, but Paul does not seem to require preaching competence (as we define it today) for a person to serve as an elder, i.e. pastor (I presume here that the terms elder and pastor apply to the same function). I wondered as well how a congregation might respond to a situation where the lead pastor was not the primary preaching pastor. How would this arrangement affect the ability of the “lead pastor” to “lead” the congregation when they did not see him consistently and personally providing spiritual guidance through the preaching office? Would it eventually erode his leadership? And then I thought about the effect of this arrangement upon the internal working relationship within the ministry team.

What complexities would such an arrangement create for a chairperson? From the viewpoint of organizational leadership it should work. There is still a lead pastor that the board can hold accountable as the primary leader within the organization. That lead pastor or the combined ministry leadership team has decided to delegate the majority of the preaching task to someone else within the pastoral team, presumably so that the lead pastor can concentrate on other aspects of ministry leadership that conform to his strengths, giftedness and experience. Lines of accountability are clear and responsibilities defined carefully. Theoretically it should function just as well as more usual arrangements.

The board, however,  may conclude that such an arrangement, while possible, will not enable the board to achieve the congregation’s mission and implement their vision effectively. Their conclusion may be based upon congregational dynamics, denominational tradition, and organizational realities. Primary preaching responsibilities are very important for communicating the vision and providing spiritual direction to the congregation. If the lead pastor is not involved in this activity regularly it might inhibit his ability to advance the vision and nurture the spiritual health of the congregation.

Perhaps as well the dual realities of the congregation both as community and organization require that the perceived leadership of the spiritual community be the same as the actual leadership of the organizational structure. If the leadership is divided and distinct, this may cause disruption and conflict at some point, particularly when changes in leadership occur.

I think it might be more effective to reverse the question and ask “Does the Lead Pastor have to be the Executive Pastor?” You will probably find many more examples of this kind of leadership arrangement functioning well within various congregations. Examples of the reverse are not common. Some congregational leaders are seeking to establish ministry leadership teams following the concepts of “prophet, priest and king” or “apostles, evangelists, prophets, teachers/pastors,” dividing ministry responsibilities in accord with perceived linkages between these ancient roles and contemporary leadership needs in a contemporary congregation. Such team concepts can work for a time. However, their success over a long period of time probably depends upon highly developed interpersonal relationships and perhaps the fact that preaching pastor and/or lead pastor was/were part of the founding leadership team. They would also require a consensual model of decision-making. If the primary leaders of the ministry team are part of a larger church board (however such a group may be defined), then other members of the board may feel at a disadvantage since they are not part of prior discussions about major issues. Or, if the ministry team is not part of the formal church board, managing the relationship between this strong ministry team and the church board will require considerable wisdom. It may be that the ministry leadership team is also officially the church board and in such instances the decision-making issues will acquire a different character.

A chairperson’s responsibility is to enable the church board to provide effective strategic leadership for the congregation. In helping the board to sort through such a question it needs to consider whether such an arrangement is biblically consistent and would truely advance the congregation’s mission or is merely an arrangement designed to serve the needs of one individual. In other words, this arrangement might be wonderful for the person seeking such a role, but ultimately detrimental to the health and long term development of the congregation. Given the nature of church community, sorting out such a question can be quite difficult, particularly if it means that the person may not be able to continue in the employment of the church. This is doubly difficult when the person is also part of the board because of his office. The conflict of interest issues potentially are quite significant. These factors might be particularly relevant if congregational leaders are considering a major change from a current, more traditional model.

Another factor would be whether or not the preaching pastor in such an arrangement would be able to survive. What does the non-preaching, lead pastor do if certain voices are critical of the preaching, for whatever reason? How much liberty in the Spirit does the preaching pastor have to present God’s word? These internal dynamics could become quite complex.

So, while such an arrangement is doable theoretically, the chairperson of a church board support it only after very careful examination of the possible consequences. It will probably work all right when things are going well, but may prove unsustainable when significant problems and conflicts emerge.