Author Archives for Dr. Larry Perkins

Page 2 of 26

121: Top Five Issues For Chairs of Church Boards

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on April 9, 2012 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance, Board Member and Senior Pastor. 0 Comments Tags: , .

Two years have passed since I began this website. People are accessing it from many different countries. I trust you have found it useful from time to time. I invite you to use the question/comment option on the website to interact about issues which you have identified and about which you seek help.  As I review the “google” queries that lead people to this website, it seems that several issues keep surfacing. In my view the five most frequent questions or issues for which church board chairs seek information, perspective and guidance would include:

1. Does the Carver theory and application of “Policy Governance” work well in congregational contexts?

Carver’s influence on church board governance continues to be significant. As diverse church boards work with his theory and application, we are learning its good points and where it may need some modification in the congregational board setting. I continue to sense that its successful adoption and implementation requires considerable investment on the part of a lead pastor, board, and chairperson. In some congregational situations neither the lead pastor nor the chairperson has perceived the leadership requirements this model demands and so attempts to implement and sustain its application wither. One of the secrets to effective use of this model in church board settings is the consistent education of the board in its practice and the constant renewal of the discipline required on the part of the board and staff to make it work well. The issue of accountability between the Lead Pastor and the church board is perhaps the most difficult issue to manage and chairs often find themselves caught in the middle of communicating board expectations and moderating pastoral resistance. Comprehensive orientation of new board members is critical to sustaining this model of governance.

2. How do you foster good relations between a Lead Pastor and chairperson, as well as the board?

This issue seems to be a reflection of the previous one in many cases. However, it has a much larger scope. Historically, in my perception, seminaries have not paid much attention to governance issues in their development of pastoral leaders. They have focused on the role of pastor as spiritual guide, preacher, evangelist and counselor. More recently emphasis upon leadership development in the curriculum has surged, but often leadership issues are not discussed in relationship to lead pastor — board roles and responsibilities. A church board is viewed primarily as a team to support the pastor, rather than as the team appointed by the congregation to advance its mission, with the lead pastor being the servant of the board in this respect. Things become more complicated when church boards are composed partially of elders and deacons, or entirely of deacons, entirely of elders, or are just “leadership teams.” Significant confusion reigns and expectations are very diverse. The chairperson sits as “umpire” in between these two vested interests.

3. How do you deal with crises as chairperson?

Risk management should hold greater priority in the mind of a church board chair. Anticipatory prevention of crises is far easier to manage then dealing with crises which suddenly and unexpectedly come. You cannot avoid or even predict every crisis. However, church boards can do a better job at managing potential risks. This includes maintaining good insurance (including liability insurance for board and staff), maintaining and operating facilities in a safe way, implementing policies relating to children’s workers, harassment, and privacy of information, and having good succession plans. Further as proposals for new ministry programs or events are brought to the board, board members need to learn to ask the right questions to ensure that risks have been identified and all reasonable steps taken to mitigate them. Annual audits or financial reviews will go a long way to resolving trust issues surrounding financial oversight. Codes of conduct for board members and staff can also be useful tools to guard integrity.

4. What is the primary responsibility of a church board and how do you keep  the board focused on the main thing — advancing the mission?

The nature of congregational life and the responsibility of the board to ensure the congregation’s spiritual health tend to add items to a church board’s agenda which, perhaps significant in their own right, are not board matters and consume inordinate board resources. They can be dealt with by the staff or other volunteer leaders in the congregation if properly empowered and accountable. The result is that church board agendas get crowded with “urgent” matters. The board has little time to pray, discern and plan strategically for the future. The chairperson plays a very significant role in disciplining the board (as it mandates the chair to do) to focus on its primary responsibilities. The chairperson sorts out what the board must do from the many things it can do. Concurrently, the chair disciplines the board to attend to governance, not management. A church board’s time is very limited and in many respects forms its most precious resource. If a church board does not learn how to give necessary attention to its most important responsibilities at some point congregational life will suffer.

I think as well that in many cases church board members struggle to align and integrate their spiritual responsibilities with their strategic and legal responsibilities. This creates confusion about the best way for the board to advance the congregation’s mission and thus to steward its time appropriately.

5. How can I learn to lead a church board effectively — education  and personal development for the role of chairperson?

The turnover rate of church board chairs seems to be quite significant. Perhaps an average term for a chairperson would be 3 – 5 years. Few resources are dedicated to enabling a new board chair to learn the craft well, understand board governance, and discern how to integrate this within the spiritual realities of a congregation. That is one reason I began this website — to provide encouragement, training and resources for church board chairs. There are several publications that can provide some help, most of which I have reviewed in the website. However, the church board will not improve in its understanding and operational effectiveness where a chairperson does not engage this task.

I think as well that the term “governance” is not well understood in congregational settings, implying an authoritarian regime, rather than the responsible use of authority entrusted by the congregation for the care of the congregation.

 

If you do have questions about various aspects of a church board chair’s role or some advice about how you might approach a certain situation, please use the question and answer feature of the website. I will seek to respond in some fashion within 48 hours.

 

 

 

120. Case Study #8: “Relative” Interest in a Church Board Member.

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on April 2, 2012 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance, Board Member, Case Study and Senior Pastor. 0 Comments Tags: , .

[Although the story in this case study may seem to resemble a real situation, the names, places and actual circumstances do not describe any actual church, church board, pastor or chairperson.]

The nominating committee presented two current church board members as nominees to the annual general meeting of Popkum Community Church for an additional term on the church board and they were appointed. However, one board position was not filled. The board chair had asked several congregational members whom he perceived could make a good contribution to allow their names to be placed in nomination, but none had felt they could let their name stand. The new board terms did not start for several months and so the board chair still had time to recruit an additional candidate and make a recommendation to the nominating committee.

One Sunday the chair felt led to talk with a person whom he had not really considered previously about letting his name stand as a board member. During the conversation the person disclosed that he had thought about this possibility but was uncertain whether it would be wise. He was cousin of the lead pastor. The individual was concerned about conflicts of interest and the impact such an appointment might have on family relations. The chair respected the concern, but suggested that there were ways to deal with this on a case by case basis. There was an opportunity to serve and make decisions in the best interests of the congregation.

The person agreed to give it further thought. Undoubtedly, he would have further conversation with the lead pastor about this. A few weeks later the chair discovered that this person had scheduled a conversation with a current board member to discern whether he should let his name stand. The chair was encouraged at this and continued to pray that God would give wisdom to all concerned.

Several weeks later the person agreed to let his name be placed in nomination. The other board member made the recommendation to the nominating committee and asked that they consider the person for the role of board member. At the next membership meeting his name was brought forward and he was appointed.

So now the chair had to consider how best to orient the new member to the work of the board and what advice he should provide in the matter of conflicts of interest.

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

1. Navigating the world of kinship relationships within congregations can be tricky, particularly when it comes to board roles. In some cases the bylaws speak to the issue and strictly limit the number of board members serving at one time who have family relationships — a good idea by the way. From time to time, however, well qualified board candidates may be reluctant to serve because they have heard about some bad experiences in churches where related parties have become members of the board. Sometimes congregational members become suspicious that too much “power” is being concentrated in one family group. This will be particularly relevant in the case of smaller churches. Or there is concern that the board members may not make decisions in the best interests of the congregation particularly when the issues affect people they are directly related to. Given the nature of church congregations it is quite probable that you as a chairperson will face this situation sooner or later.

2. Church boards should develop guidelines for board members regarding conflicts of interest, i.e. where a board member has a direct “interest” in the decision because they might be affected financially, positionally or relationally. The policy should stipulate what constitutes a conflict of interest, the responsibility of the board member to be proactive in bring a conflict of interest to the board’s attention, and normal responses when a conflict of interest is detected. The board itself needs to deal with such situations carefully and seriously. For example, if the church board is discussing a matter of church member discipline that involves a person related to one of the board members, that board member should be excused from the meeting for that discussion, with the minutes clearly showing that this was the case.

3. If your church board has such a policy, then it would be wise in the orientation meeting to review its stipulations carefully with new board members in this situation . You can discuss with them possible scenarios in which conflicts of interest could arise and how you suggest they handle it. Seek to work at this collaboratively and let the board members know that you will seek to signal in advance where they may need to take appropriate action.

4. It would also be helpful to have a similar discussion with the lead pastor. He may also experience additional conflicts of interest, particularly if new, related board members encounter difficulties.

5. Finally, this occasion may provide you with an opportunity to review with the entire board the issue of conflict of interest. If your board has a policy in this regard, take time to review it and ask whether it needs to be revised. Be transparent with the board members about this matter, because not all board members may realize that kinship relationships exist among board members or among board members and staff.

119: Developing and Maintaining Church Board Cohesiveness

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on March 26, 2012 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance and Board Member. 0 Comments Tags: .

Church boards are groups of people entrusted with a specific mandate. It is as Carver states “a body, indivisible in its authority and its accountability….But a board is a peculiar creature. Its task is to be a numerically workable microcosm of a numerically unworkable total congregation” (“Of Trust and Trusteeship”). In my view a church board is a ministry team composed of mature Christians appointed and entrusted by the congregation to enable it to advance its chosen mission. Cohesiveness becomes a critical factor in the ability of a church board as a ministry team to fulfill its potential and accomplish its responsibilities. When present it is a strong indicator that the  Holy Spirit is working actively and powerfully in the lives of the board members.

A church board appoints and authorizes a chairperson to facilitate and enable its cohesive, effective operation. The chair needs to develop and exercise some team-building and team-cohesiveness competencies. Larry Osborne talks about “Sticky Teams” and says that “when it comes to building a healthy and unified ministry team, it all starts with the board. As the board goes, so goes the rest of the church” (p.25). In his view board cohesiveness is essential for church health. It’s tough to experience revival when the board has become a war zone.

What factors inhibit or stifle board cohesion? Each situation will be somewhat different, but some of the common causes would include:

1. The ignorance of participants about their personal role and responsibilities as board members. They do not understand that the board collectively must act for the good of the whole congregation and not just one segment or particular interest group. They have not grasped that their most important job is to advance the congregation’s mission, not to be watchdog over the pastor or to promote their personal agenda.

2. A lack of commitment to an agreed vision. Cohesion occurs when the board members know the vision and personally are committed to its attainment. If the board you chair is divided around key issues, perhaps what has happened is a disintegration of support for the vision. It might be time for a review and reaffirmation of the vision.

3. Failure to establish “ground rules” for good board operation and adhere to them. There is no agreement around the need for and practice of confidentiality. Board members are not willing to support board decisions and begin to speak publicly in opposition.

4. Inability to distinguish between unity and uniformity. Sometimes we confuse cohesion with uniformity. Board members will have different perceptions, opinions and insights. God has designed the church, his body, to express diversity. People serve on the board to bring this diverse set of skills, perspectives, and gifts to bear on the achievement of the mission. It is part of their due diligence as board members to ask their questions and probe. Some may vote against a proposal. However, expectation must be that once the board has made a decision it must go forward in unity.

5. The lead pastor’s unwillingness to acknowledge and respect the appropriate role of the board as defined in the congregation’s bylaws. In other words the CEO works in a manipulative way within the board so as to inhibit it from operating effectively. The board is viewed as a necessary evil, an obstacle to overcome in the pursuit of a personal agenda.

6. Sometimes lack of cohesion occurs because a chairperson does not understand his/her role. The board may not in fact be divided around any specific issue, but the chair’s inexperience inhibits the board from working in a cohesive manner.

I am sure you can supply additional reasons why cohesion often is in short supply within church boards. While it is important to discern these causes, it is more significant for board chairs to try and figure out how to move a dysfunctioning board to greater cohesion and effective ministry.

1. If lack of cohesion has plagued the board you are chairing, then realize that it will take considerable time, discipline and prayer to help the board develop a new cultural of unity. Despite the long journey, if you succeed the consequences for the health of the congregation will be very significant. Yet when it happens, few will recognize the cause.

2. Take time to understand your role as chairperson as clearly as you can. If there is no specific board mandate that defines your responsibilities and empowers you to act on behalf of the board, then work with the board as best you can to establish one. The greater clarity you have about your function in the board as chair, the better positioned you will be to encourage cohesion. Without this board mandate you will find it difficult on behalf of the board to confront board members who are acting divisively.

3. In your board leadership continually remind the members that as the church board their primary responsibility is to advance the mission and do this in a way that demonstrates exemplary spiritual maturity. Take time at the end of each meeting to ask the board members to reflect briefly on whether their work has enhanced the health of the congregation and advanced the mission.

4. In the worship times that generally begin a church board meeting consider biblical stories or analogies the describe how God’s Spirit blesses his church with diverse gifts, but also enables it to express oneness. Some great texts for this would include Jesus’ prayer in John 17 or Paul’s exhortation in Ephesians 4:1-5.

5. Help the board members to learn the difference between unity and uniformity. Recognize board members who speak carefully, but truthfully and celebrate their responsible use of their role as a board person to express their opinions in ways that demonstrate spiritual wisdom and maturity. Conversely, when the board is not operating in a cohesive manner, stop the proceedings, identify the problem and perhaps ask the board to convene in prayer, asking the Holy Spirit to provide direction and unity. This is a spiritual issue after all and Satan certainly does not want cohesive church boards.

6. Board cohesion probably reflects existing cohesion in the relationship between the lead pastor and the board church. If this relationship lacks a deep sense of unity, then eventually it will affect board cohesion. Attention paid to this relationship will enhance board effectiveness as the board members discern this relational commitment.

7. Take time to build social relationships and trust  among the board members. The more they know and appreciate one another, the greater the cohesion will be because trust is the best medium for developing unity.

118. Case Study #7: Stepping in or Stepping Out as Chairperson

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on March 19, 2012 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance, Board Member, Case Study and Senior Pastor. 0 Comments Tags: , .

[Although the story in this case study may seem to resemble a real situation, the names, places and actual circumstances do not describe any actual church, church board, pastor or chairperson.]

John was partway through his third term (a two year stint) as the chair of the Brighton Community church board. He had six months to go. During his first two terms the board responded well to his leadership and he felt good about the progress they were making together. The “guys” were energized, pulling together, and willing to tackle some tough stuff – and they did it with prayerful courage. But John also was entering a new phase of life as he was enjoying semi-retirement and making plans for some new adventures, including a few short term mission opportunities. Recently John was diagnosed with high blood pressure and his physician had advised him to lower stress, lose weight and begin a disciplined diet. He now took a prescribed drug daily to deal with his blood pressure.

The composition of the board changed at the last annual general meeting. Two of the members whom he had relied upon for wisdom and leadership in the board had stepped off, even though they could have continued. John had sought to encourage several people to serve, but none had agreed. The nominating committee worked hard to select good nominees.  In the election at the annual general meeting one of the people appointed to the board had never served on a church board before and the other, although he had some prior experience, was not a collaborator. The total number of board members at this time was five, including himself.  One of the other seasoned board members was signaling he wanted a change as well.

The lead pastor, a solid, caring leader, turned sixty-five last week and John knew that retirement was imminent. In the next year or so the board would probably be leading the search for a replacement. In addition the church facility required considerable upgrades in the next year or two – new roof, internal and external paint jobs, and heating system replacement. The church had few financial reserves and the costs for this would be several hundreds of thousands of dollars. The last time the church had to raise funds for facility maintenance things had not gone well and memories were still rather raw for some. The pastor had also revealed confidentially to John that a serious matter of membership misconduct was about to become public. This event would send some shock waves through the congregation.

The chair of the nominating committee had asked John to meet him for coffee and John knew he would be asked to let his name stand for another term as a church board member. Without doubt if he did the board members would plead with him to continue in his role as chairperson. John was also aware that one of the current board members had the capacity to become chairperson, but John was uncertain whether he would agree.

So how should John respond to the nominating committee chair? Should he step in and continue to provide significant leadership for the church and its board? Or should he step out, having served faithfully for six years. What would you advise John to do? What factors should he consider as he makes his decision?

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

1.  Obviously given the circumstances the church board will be doing some ‘heavy lifting’ in the next two years. The chairperson will be a critical player in the board’s ability to lead the congregation effectively through these institutional changes. So John has to be willing to give considerable time and attention to this role. John needs to evaluate whether he has the heart to devote this kind of care to the role, especially as he moves into semi-retirement. Would he be able to accomplish the plans he has in this new phase of life and still lead the board as chair? If not, is he willing to sacrifice some of his personal goals (which included short term missions opportunities) in order to enable the congregation to flourish?

2.  When institutions experience significant change the leaders experience stress. Given the new situation with his health, John has to evaluate whether another term as chair of the board would create  serious health risk.

3.  The leadership vacuum is also a concern. Perhaps one of the “negotiations’ that John needs to engage with the board is the question of succession. He may be able to manage another term if the board will identify and appoint a successor to serve as vice-chair. This would allow for a period of mentoring, but if John’s personal situation warranted, the opportunity to resign as chair before his term was completed.

4.  There is also the pastoral leadership succession issue that is looming. Perhaps John needs to have a private conversation with one of the people who recently completed work on the board to see whether he/she would be willing to chair the anticipated search committee. If a commitment would be given, this would give John confidence that this process would be led well, alleviating a significant “worry point.” Similarly he might need to have some conversation with the chair of the board’s finance committee to consider what strategies might be proposed to secure the funding for the necessary facility upgrades. If a clear path could be discerned in this matter, again it would shift some of the leadership burden. In other words, John could serve another term if he were to plan carefully and gather around himself two or three key leaders who would help him lead the congregation through this period.

117. How a Chair Facilitates an “Executive Session” for a Church Board.

Published by Dr. Larry Perkins on March 11, 2012 in Board, Board Chair, Board Governance, Board Member and Senior Pastor. 0 Comments Tags: , , .

According to the definition provided in The Handbook of Nonprofit Governance (BoardSource, 2010, page 363) an executive session is “a meeting of the board to handle confidential issues; often no staff are present.” An alternative term for such a session is “in camera.” Such a session enables the board to deliberate on sensitive matters. These might include the discipline of a board member, congregational member, or a staff person, legal issues, or decisions about awarding contracts. During such sessions all staff are absent. If the matter concerns the CEO or a board member, then usually they are asked to excuse themselves as well. When someone is disqualified from the session because it is believed that they have a conflict of interest or their position hinders their objectivity, they are “recused.”

Within the context of church boards executive sessions can create considerable rancour, mistrust, and uncertainty. If a lead pastor is asked to recuse himself because the board wants to hold an executive session but the board is unwilling to share the reason for the session, the relationship between that pastor and the board will be damaged. As well executive sessions can be open to abuse, enabling the board to act secretively, when that is not necessary.  There is an important distinction to be made between appropriate confidentiality and harmful secrecy. If the motivation for the executive session is secrecy, then it is not appropriate for the board to engage in such a session.

The chairperson facilitates the work of the board and this includes helping it determine when and if an executive session may be required for the board to carry out its responsibilities. “Executive sessions” are one of the tools that a board can use to work effectively. So a chairperson needs to understand their purpose, how such sessions should be minuted, and the protocols  regarding who should  or should not be included.

It is quite appropriate for a chairperson to ask the church board to clarify its policy regarding executive sessions. Some board members might balk at the board holding any executive sessions. However, when appropriate explanation is provided, most will support the development of a policy. Such a policy would define those matters that normally the board would deliberate in an executive session. These might include matters of staff, member or board reward or discipline, matters that involve legal proceedings (civil or criminal), or financial, personnel or contractual matters about which premature disclosure would be prejudicial.

Board discussions are always considered confidential, unless otherwise agreed by the board. It is the minutes which express the nature of the board’s decisions and deliberations. Minutes normally do not record the details of the discussion or the involvement of the board members in any particular part of that discussion. However, the minutes should enable the congregation hold the board accountable because they know enough about the board’s decisions, can evaluate the processes, and thus sustain trust in the board’s leadership. Secrecy conversely seeks to shield from appropriate scrutiny, to prevent accountability, and to manipulate process.

Some suggest that church boards should build short executive sessions into every meeting to give the board members opportunity to share frankly, in the absence of staff, concerns or issues they may have. Others advise that executive sessions should be scheduled two or three times a year to preclude the sense that an executive session is highly unusual or to signal that there is significant trouble.  They are just normal parts of board operations. However, I would suggest that executive sessions should be occasional, extraordinary,  and at the call of the board members as advised by the chairperson.

It is possible to deal with many sensitive issues by asking a board member with a conflict of interest or the lead pastor (in the case of salary discussions) to recuse themselves from the discussion. However, this is not have to be an executive session. The decision of the board will be minuted in the normal way. Even when the board is discussing the annual evaluation of the lead pastor there is no need for an executive session, if the process is fair and the evaluation is linked specifically with the organization’s performance. Accountability is most effective when transparency is operative.

When an executive session occurs, the minutes should be kept separate from the minutes of the normal board deliberations. Usually the secretary of the board will maintain such minutes securely and confidentially. The board needs to approve these minutes as they do all minutes.

Should the church board consider it necessary to hold an executive session in order to discuss some matter relating to the lead pastor, then it is important that the board instruct the chair what should be communicated to the lead pastor regarding the purpose of the session, what was discussed and the outcome of that deliberation. Without this direction the chair cannot share any information with the lead pastor. As well, communicating carefully but clearly with the lead pastor will defuse unnecessary suspicion or anxiety.

Remember that the board is responsible to make sure it has the best information upon which to base its decisions. Excluding individuals from the deliberations by means of executive session may remove vital sources of information that the board requires to make informed and prudent decisions.

How then does a chairperson decide when developing the board agenda whether a matter calls for an executive session? If policy defining the basis for executive sessions is in place, then the chair can refer to the policy and make a judgment. If there is some doubt, the board can be asked to make a decision about this matter. In the absence of policy, then prudence and common sense are the best guides. Where there is danger that a person or agency under discussion may be harmed by premature disclosure of the board’s deliberations, then probably an executive session may be necessary. Or if the chair thinks that the board may risk liability by discussing an issue, then perhaps an executive session may be in order, first to discern whether the board should discuss the issue and then to deliberate.