One of the duties of board members involves the application of special competence or expertise to assist the board in making prudent decisions. If a board member who is a chartered accountant fails to warn the board that it is making an imprudent financial decision, he or she is doubly at fault, both as a general board member, but also because he or she had the financial competence to help the board make a better decision, but chose not to exercise it.

The chairperson seeks to orchestrate and facilitate the application of this diverse knowledge that is present among the various board members, so that the board together makes the best possible decisions. At least two issues emerge for the chairperson in managing this knowledge. First, what types and kinds of knowledge, experience and competence do the various board members bring to the table. Second, how does the chairperson encourage board members to apply their “talents” to the questions at hand?

Within the corporate world knowledge seems to be the indispensable element and most important resource that a company possesses. Capturing this knowledge and applying it creatively and effectively  to develop productive and competitive corporate strategies and innovations preoccupies the attention of CEO’s and corporate boards. The board members individually and collectively through their actions are expected to “create value” for the company and its shareholders.

I think that something of an intimidation factor comes into play within church boards which hinders the application of their knowledge, experience and competence. Most board members have little or no formal theological education or experience as a vocational church leader. They try to speak into discussions about complex church matters, but feel they have little to offer and so gently probe around the edges of the issue, but rarely jump in with both feet. If a board member does speak forcefully with respect of an issue,  “those that know” will quickly demonstrate the board member’s lack of expertise, however kindly it may be couched. Next time the board member will be less willing to participate meaningfully in the discussion. Such exchanges tend to shut down robust debate. I am not saying that lead pastors, for instance, intentionally function like this, but the results are often the same.

I think church board members struggle to discern how they might bring their knowledge, expertise and competence to bear upon the critical issues listed on the agenda. They may know how to tackle an issue within their business context, but they understand that the church is not a business and this complicates their participation. When does their competence or knowledge speak directly to an agenda issue and when does it not?

I am presuming that there is an uptapped reservoir of knowledge, experience and competence within a church board that if accessed and recognized would help the board to make better decisions. Concurrently, if recognized and used,  it would make the individual board member’s work within the board much more satisfying. They would recognize their contribution.

What kinds and types of knowledge and competence might be present within the church board you chair?

1. Professional and business leaders are constantly attending seminars, workshops and conferences to keep on top of their game. As well they are interacting with other leaders in their fields about many issues involving leadership, organizational development, use of technology, etc. They bring this diverse knowledge and competence into the board meetings.

2. Some board members will have particular skill in analysis and problem solving. They can help the board analyze and consider various solutions to problems that the congregation or pastoral leadership may be facing. Such people have ability to weigh evidence and discern process that leads to good decisions.

3. Other board members will bring ability and understanding of action knowledge, i.e. how to communicate well or how to measure performance or expertise in handling conflict constructively.

4. All board members bring “habitual knowledge,” i.e. knowledge gained through their business, personal or professional experience in which they have had to deal with similar issues many times. It often will be a specific kind of knowledge, e.g. financial, communications, strategic planning, facilities management, etc.

5. As well, all board members will bring cultural experience and/or perceptions to the table that enable them to empathize with particular people and develop mutual understandings. This is why it is important to have diversity in the boardroom.

6. Procedural knowledge may be the particular interest of one or two board members. They know the institution’s history, bylaws, and policies. As the board engages issues, these are the people who remind the board of the collective memory and experiences that have guided the board in the past. In some cases this may include knowledge of how the denominational family has developed.

You can probably think of other kinds of knowledge pertinent to a church board. The point is simply that within the board you serve as chairperson there already exists a significant array of knowledge, experience and competence that has potential to enhance the board’s work together.

So this leads to the second issue — how do you as chairperson learn about this expertise and then encourage its appropriate usage within the board?

1. I think one of the key ways you can do this as board chair is to ensure there is a good orientation process for new board members. During this interaction you can explore with the new board members what specific expertise they bring to the board. Take note of their responses and keep this information accessible.

2. During the annual board evaluation ask the board members in what way during the last twelve months they think their particular expertise has contributed to board decisions. Conversely explore with them whether they think their expertise has not been employed and what might be done to correct this in the coming year.

3. As you prepare the board agendas be thinking which board members might contribute to specific discussions. You might even approach specific board members prior to meeting and ask them to think carefully about the issue from the perspective of their knowledge and competence.

4. If you have regular conversations with your lead pastor, you might ask his opinion about who on the board might assist in specific issues. He may be aware of board members’ expertise or experience  of which you are ignorant.

5. At the annual board retreat build into the agenda an informal time where you explore with the board members creative ways to employ their knowledge, experience and competence more effectively within the board’s operations.

The goal of this is twofold:  to help you as chairperson understand the board’s potential and then facilitate the board’s use of its resources to fulfill its responsibilities with excellence.

Church boards whose congregations have a sustained history of faithful giving and remarkable generosity may be lulled into thinking that this pattern will continue abated. Their governance leadership will not affect it and so in their decision-making they gradually lose sight of this fundamental reality. They forget that good governance encourages and helps to sustain faithful, generous giving. Conversely, they forget that if they make consistently inappropriate decisions and lose the confidence of the congregation, this will impact eventually the bottomline.

Congregations are faith-based entities and church boards lead with a deep sense of trust in God’s provision through his people. No question — and there are countless stories of God’s unexpected help when times are tough and resources scarce. However, good governance will never presume upon such grace nor the unlimited generosity of God’s people.

It is also the case that from time to time unexpected, externally generated, crises emerge that have nothing to do with the lack of good governance. For example, if the entire country experiences a serious economic depression, then the ability of people to give will also be affected. Or if a major industry in the town shuts down and this impacts a third of the congregation’s families, this is not a failure of good governance by the church board. However, how the church board responds in such cases will become a measure of good governance.

We all know from various studies of church growth that congregations experience cycles of growth and decline. There are few examples of churches that experience sustained growth over twenty or thirty years. A few stand out in this regard, but for the most part cycles of growth and decline mark local church histories. Like corporations, dare I say it, churches come and go, albeit often for very different reasons. However, in many cases the shift from growth to decline can be traced to a deficit of good governance.

The chair of a church board needs to keep these dynamics in mind. Enthusiasm for ministry is great, but sustaining it over the long term requires good governance and significant faith. The board members, if they understand their role in governance, will be torn between two competing responsibilities. On the one hand, they will desire to advance the mission of the congregation as expeditiously as possible. On the other, they must act prudently to preserve the resources of the congregation. Finding the balance between these two somewhat contrasting responsibilities is never easy.

For example, what is the appropriate amount of contingency funding that should be built into the annual operational budget? What amount should be targeted over time to be placed in a segregated contingency fund? And if your church owns a facility, what amount is the board placing in replacement reserve to cover the replacement of big ticket items over time? I would suggest that this kind of financial planning is probably the weakest area of risk management that church boards demonstrate. The demands of ministry and the urgency for mission seem to preclude such financial prudence. Some even argue it is morally wrong for churches to develop significant amounts of cash and not use them to help people. The result is that we work on a model of no reserves and pay as you go. We load the responsibility for the upkeep of the facilities, for example, onto the next generation.

I am probably being a bit harsh in my assessment, but my years serving on church boards and seeking to lead as chair generally would support my comments. If your board is different, then you are blessed as a chair.

One way to try to deal with this constant tension is to develop a contingency fund policy and a replacement fund policy. This allows the board to work the issues through, develop good guidelines and then implement. It might even be possible to consider one fund that would support both contingency and replacement issues. In the matter of contingency a goal would be to have enough in the contingency fund to support operations for a three month period in the event of an emergency. Another way to deal with this is to build into your annual insurance policy something that will pay for continued operations in case of fire or some other damage to your facility. The replacement fund is a more difficult matter because each facility is different in terms of age, size, quality, etc. However, again seek to develop some minimum standard and expectation.

Another area that needs careful consideration is the percentage increase in the annual budget that a board should recommend. If a significant increase (i.e. more than 3 – 5%) is being considered, then the board should make sure it has done its homework as to the reasons why it thinks additional resources will be available, not just for that coming budget year, but for the ensuing years. Dollars added to operational budgets are very difficult to take off the table. Retrenchment is never an easy process. Because the majority of a church budget, apart from facilities, tends to be located in personnel, the ability to reduce a church budget significantly and quickly always impacts staffing. Good governance will seek to find ways to grow ministry and staff in ways that are sustainable.

However, in the midst of all of these factors, the primary point is that the practice of good governance does encourage the generosity of the people. As they have confidence in the spiritual maturity and wisdom exercised by the board, they generally will support with their gifts the mission advancement they perceive. The chairperson is aware of this relationship and seeks to help the board demonstrate good governance and thus enable the people to give generously and confidently. In each of these various financial matters developing good communication and explanations for the congregation will generate unity of perspective.

Probably an important part of this question is what “creates value” from God’s perspective and how do we pursue such value intentionally and worshipfully as a church board? I would suggest the following might be some of the critical things that would be included:

1. Developing and nurturing a healthy congregation — having a clear sense of what defines a healthy congregation.

2. Enabling the influence of the Good News to penetrate the local community in positive ways.

3. Leading as a church board in ways that demonstrate and model  integrity, ‘agape-love’, and commitment to Jesus Christ, enhancing the reputation of the faith community.

4.  Ensuring that all that can be done is being done to enable the growth of the faith community within the mission, values and vision of the congregation.

When people begin to apply Carver’s model of governance, they sometimes assume that the division between governance and management means that once broad policies are in place that the board has nothing to say about strategic or operational plans. Those become the domains of the Lead Pastor/CEO. All the board is interested in knowing is whether the “ends policies” are being met in accord with the “CEO Limitations policies.” Personally, I think this is a misreading of Carver’s intent.  If a church board is using Carver’s model,  to ensure that the ends policies are being achieved this board will  attend to strategic planning and perhaps in some cases operational plans. Otherwise their ability to exercise transformative governance will be limited.

In other contexts where no specific governance model is being followed, church boards in my experience tend to follow the lead of the Lead Pastor. When a new initiative is proposed, most likely it will be approved. However, it is the rare church board that will delve into the details of how such an initiative truly adds value to the life and goals of the congregation. Devoting time in an already bulging agenda to discerning such questions becomes a fierce struggle. It is easier to “trust” the wisdom of the Lead Pastor and go with the flow, as they say. This means that most of the responsibility for “adding value” to the life and vision of the congregation falls upon the shoulders of the Lead Pastor. And if board members do decide to take some responsibility for ensuring that value creation is occurring, this often can be interpreted as interference or lack of trust in the administration.

How does the exercise of good chairmanship enable a church board to give appropriate attention to “value creation” in its work as a board?

1. Perhaps as a first step the chair should engage some conversation with the board members about the role and responsibility of the board in creating value for the “owner” through the life and work of the congregation. Defining what “value” means and discerning ways of measuring increase in value would be important steps forward. As well, the board needs to have a clear sense of who the “owner” is. Ultimately in the case of the congregation it will be God, who is the owner in the more immediate sense and what responsibility does the church board have to create value for those owners? With some definition and understanding supported by the whole board, the chair has a basis for developing appropriate agendas.

2. Another positive action would be to require all new proposals to include a brief paragraph indicating ways in which the implementation of this new program would add value to the life and health of the congregation. Some means of measuring that achievement of that value should also be proposed. This reminds the board that in the evaluation of all proposes the question of value creation remains a significant issue. Within church circles we are good at using the theological jargon, i.e. talking about the glory of God, but are challenged to discern in real life terms how exactly the activities and operations of our congregations are enhancing God’s reputation.

3. Church boards talk frequently about contributing to the health of the congregation. All of their board work has this outcome. However, has your church board defined what church health looks like for your congregation? Does your board have measures by which it discerns whether the health is improving or decreasing? As some say, “what isn’t measured doesn’t get done.” Are these indicators being monitored by the board regularly through accurate reporting by the Lead Pastor?

4.  At some point in the annual cycle of the board meetings there should be significant opportunity for the board members to receive and evaluate a strategic ministry plan. They should ensure that such plans are indeed adding value to the life of the congregation.

Probably most of you have discovered one or two people on your board who seem to have served forever — perhaps 20 or more years! They truly are veterans and for them and the congregation stepping off the board would seem extraordinarily unusual –  the end of an era. But is this a healthy practice, permitting people to serve term after term? Does it lead to a sense of personal entitlement? Or, to put the question differently, is it important for board effectiveness to keep renewing the board members? Should there be a limit to the number of terms a person serves? And even after the oft required one year hiatus, should they be invited back onto the board?

In recent discussions regarding non-profit board governance the argument has been made that once board members have completed their maximum number of terms there should be a celebratory thank you, but no return engagement. The arguments against this practice of recycling old board members is that it discourages good succession planning to renew the board, does not encourage transformative thinking in the board, and fosters a kind of “old boys” network that may not be healthy for the organization. Rebekah Basinger has proposed such arguments in her website “Generous Matters.” There is wisdom in her concerns.

Does this issue have relevance for church boards? In my experience the difficulty of recruiting people to volunteer for service as a board member usually means that once you are appointed, it easily becomes a life sentence. Normally the same faces year after year meet around the boardroom table, unless personal frustration sets in and a person no longer desires to serve. But is this good for the health and sustainability of the congregation? While it might give the appearance of stability, is it in fact a formula for stagnation?

Perhaps there are factors in the congregational board context that require some modification of these arguments for not re-appointing board members in non-profits after that they have served their maximum number of terms.

1. The potential pool of board members in a local congregation can be quite restricted, particularly in smaller faith communities. In some denominations board members are also elders and this role is restricted to males. This automatically reduces by more than 50% the potential pool because male generally form a smaller proportion of the congregation than females. Regardless of one’s position theologically on this matter, it is a reality in many congregational contexts.  Another limitation is that church board members are expected to demonstrate spiritual maturity as defined in 1 Timothy 3:1ff or Titus 1:5ff. So within the potential pool of male candidates this tends to eliminate another significant group. Add in age factors and varied length of time in the congregation and the number of candidates available and also willing becomes very small. So when a person agrees to serve and the congregation appoints that person, there is considerable motivation to encourage continued involvement over multiple terms.

2. Once individuals are appointed to a church board they encounter a steep learning curve. Most people becoming church board members have never served on a non-profit board before and have had little or no training. It takes them their entire first term to figure out what they are supposed to do and how they might contribute. If the board offers no orientation or there is little appetite on the board for board education, then the situation can become quite desperate. Chances are that individuals will become so frustrated that they quite or lose their motivation. Given that resources are scarce, it is poor stewardship to expend significant efforts to develop board leadership only to lose the benefit because the trained people can no longer serve.

3. It is already difficult enough to sustain an effective board because the members are changing constantly. This reality does conflict with the previous two points. I have served on the board of our congregation for about six years. I think two of the current members (apart from the lead pastor and myself) remain from the board that led the congregation at that time and one of those is completing his term in a few months. Sustaining the ministry life and operations of a church board in the midst of such constant change creates a significant challenge. Perhaps “staggered” church board membership occurs “naturally” in most cases.

I would suggest that in the case of congregational boards a more nuanced approach may be helpful and necessary. There is wisdom in requiring a person to rotate off the board after serving two or three consecutive terms. It provides a sabbatical for that individual and does allow new people to emerge into board leadership. It also requires succession planning because the board knows who is completing their terms of service and must be replaced. It is important when such a change occurs for the chairperson or other board members to have an “exit interview” with the retiring board member. It does not have to be very formal, but should engage some evaluation of the person’s contribution, convey gratitude for service given, and solicit their counsel for the board as they complete their term. In the light of that interview a recommendation may be formulated as to whether this person should be considered for additional terms of service after the obligatory year off.

The more important question for the board, in my opinion, is whether they have the right mix of experience, competence, and leadership qualifications within the board. If this means that a prior board member who has made a quality contribution is asked to serve additional terms, that is quite fine. At the end of the day as chair you work with the board members you have to do the best job possible for the congregation, believing that God can do wonderful things through his Spirit. However, this should not inhibit you from leading the board to exercise wisdom and intentionality in developing the best board possible.

Are church board members prepared to challenge “management’s,” i.e. lead pastor’s, recommendations and assumptions? “Groupthink” is an ever-present danger, particularly when the value of “uniformity” becomes pervasive. In Christian organizations the values of politeness and kindness often hinder serious and robust interaction. When “fierce conversations” do happen, such exchanges tend to be viewed negatively and evaluated as being judgmental or too critical or an attack on a lead pastor. Conversely, lead pastors themselves are often not very secure in their roles and may not be very good at handling vigorous debate about proposals they may be recommending. A chairperson gets caught in the middle of these dynamics and has to figure out good ways to enable the board to accomplish its work, while maintaining good relations with and encouraging the lead pastor.

Another factor complicating the practice of appropriate board member dissent, due diligence and sometimes opposition arises when the board is viewed as a ministry team responsible for the spiritual care of the congregation. When a church board is identified in this way, which is appropriate, it is hard to understand and practice  dissent, due diligence and opposition from a spiritual perspective. Such board member responsibilities seem counter-productive in the development of spiritual community.

Conversely, some church board members only know one mode of operation and that is dissent. In their view their primary role is to keep the pastor “in check.” The automatic response to every new idea is ‘no’. However, when board members adopt this understanding of their responsibility, it is hard for the board to govern effectively and with its face to the future. A chairperson may discover both kinds of board attitudes are present in one and the same board! However, in this article we will focus attention on the first issue.

When  you as chairperson perceive that “Stockholm syndrome” is operative within the board as a pervasive attitude, what can and should you do to facilitate healthy board engagement?

1. Help the board members understand the relationship between spiritual oversight, careful discernment, and risk management. They have a duty of prudence to ensure that the resources of the congregation are used responsibly and ethically to advance the mission as effectively as possible. These principles can be expressed at the annual board orientation session. Or, as you discern events within board meetings, you can take opportunity and seize the teaching moment to help the board members understand the importance of  diligence, dissent, and occasionally opposition.  It is healthy and normal.

2. Ensure through your chairing that diverse perspectives are being expressed in discussions and listened to carefully. The board meeting must be a safe place where board members to share their insights openly and respectfully without fear of reprisal or reprimand. As servant of the board and its members this is your responsibility. Perhaps if expressions of dissent happen too infrequently, the dissent itself becomes the issue, rather than the ideas being expressed. Some board members may feel uneasy and consider that the dissenter is not being a “team player.” You have opportunity through your chairing and your attitude towards the dissenting voice to be accepting and supportive.

3. Help both the lead pastor and board members understand that dissent is not a bad thing — it is a necessary expression in the process of spiritual discernment and also necessary for the proper fulfillment of board responsibility. Sometimes the board’s decision will be no and for good reasons. Sometimes you can diffuse tension by helping the board name those reasons so that the ministry leadership understand clearly that this decision is not personal, but based upon sound, prudent principles. Articulating these reasons helps the ministry leadership understand more clearly how and what to present in the future.

4. Sometimes it comes down to an issue of authority and power. The board is mandated by the congregation to advance the mission and has final authority within that mandate. However, it also has to realize that a significant “no” has implications and this should not be decided in a cavalier or frivolous manner. A “no” decision should not be used to discipline or get back at the ministry leadership. If there is need for discipline, then this should be handled as a separate and specific issue. However, the lead pastor does need to accept that the board has final authority. Usually the lead pastor sits with the board as such decisions are taken and has full voice in the discussion.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.