Writing the Reach Unlimited Board Policy Manual
We are ready to start writing a Reach Unlimited Board Policy Manual (RPM). We must now engage in the deadly art of group writing. The 11 epistles I sent you the past two months (still posted at www.ReachGovernance.blogspot.com ) provide a framework for this debating / writing task. If you have not read them, please do so now.
Ends are what we provide to whom at what cost. Means are anything that is not an End. I recommend we start with writing board Means policies. Means are dictated in three of the four categories:
2.0 Executive Director Limitations (“Limits”)
3.0 Governance Process (“Process”)
4.0 Board-Management Delegation (“Links”)
Process (3.0) and Links (4.0) are board Means. Staff Means are defined only by the Limits in 2.0 and the instructions of the ED – not the board.
I suggest that 1.0 Ends not be started until the other three categories are complete. This sequence enables the board to be clear about its own job and the job of its officers and committees, as well to clarify the authority of the Executive Director (ED) before specifying Ends.
Following is a paste of assignments listed in the yet unpublished minutes of our last meeting. “The Board determined that the entire board would be involved in developing the policy manual, but the appropriate committee would be primarily responsible for the corresponding components of the policy manual:
1. “Ends”(Ends 1.0) = Goal, Mission and Vision of Reach Unlimited (i.e. who is served and what services [at what cost]): Stakeholder Committee.
2. Executive Limits (Limits 2.0) (defines limits of Executive Director’s authority): Executive/Finance Committee, Property & Services Committee, and Sustainability Committee.
3. Relationship of Executive Director to Board of Directors (Links 4.0): Executive/Finance Committee, Governance Committee.
4. Board Processes (Process 3.0): Executive/Finance Committee, Governance Committee
Rev. Lindstrom suggested an August deadline for committee input. Larry Andrews agreed to send out blog link and “Starter Statements” for four components of policy manual.” Committee chairs, please start the process.
Following are the promised “Starter Statements”
1.0 Ends – “Reach Unlimited, Inc. is dedicated to providing quality support services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.”
2.0 Executive Director Limitations – The ED shall not cause or allow any practice, or organizational circumstance, activity, or decision that is either imprudent or in violation of commonly accepted business or professional ethics.
3.0 Governance Process – The purpose of the board, on behalf of citizens within a 30 mile radius of our campus, is to see to it that Reach Unlimited (a) achieves appropriate results for appropriate persons for an appropriate cost (as specified in the board’s Ends policies) and (b) avoids unacceptable actions and situations (as prohibited in the board’s Limits policies).
4.0 Board-Management Delegation – The board’s sole official connection to the operational organization, its achievements, and conduct, will be through the Executive Director.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Governing Excellence
BTMAD 11
To rule is easy, to govern is difficult. A board that forges a new route does so at its peril. The unmasking of empty rituals is not usually appreciated. Many expect a responsible board to always do certain things. For example: approve budgets and monthly financial statements. Also, staff is expected to originate long-range plans. If these tasks are not done, then often the board is considered merely a rubber stamp for staff wishes. If the board does not follow this prescribed path, then it might be considered irresponsible.
Boldness is needed to do anything new. Also, it is important to include all relevant stakeholders. The board should not expect adaptation to be either automatic or voluntary. A conceptual struggle may ensue, not to mention ego struggles as well. One solution is to just give up and settle for the status quo. Alternatively, we would continue the pursuit of excellence at the expense of feeling fully confident and in control of the process.
The board’s predominant concern should be the benefits for the people we serve. However, often we give activities and methods so much attention; we then neglect the reason for our existence. It is the Ends policies that should consume us – “What is to be done for which people at what cost?”
Our mission is the primary task and a fragile commodity. Its compelling prescriptions must never be forgotten. The struggle with Ends issues is never complete and some aspect of Ends should be on the agenda of every meeting. Indeed, the central reason for meeting at all is the mission and mission-derived Ends policies.
Ends dialogue will never be boring because members and staff always enthusiastically hold divergent views on the priority of outputs. Rather than avoiding debate, we must encourage it. The challenge is to mold diverse views into a single voice.
Trusteeship carries compelling obligations and demands some daring. Governance is empowerment of staff within defined Limits that control risks. This calls for a mentality that allows staff to make decisions (and, sometimes, mistakes - for perfection is not realistic). Not allowing errors makes for followers, not leaders, for bureaucrats – not decision makers.
Who should be a board member? - those who can and will govern, those who will fulfill the privilege and bear the burden of trusteeship, those who have understanding and skills and willingness to govern. We need people committed to our mission, who can think in terms of systems and context, people who will participate in vigorous deliberations and then make decisions. It might be better to leave some board positions open rather than fill them with the wrong persons.
Excellence starts in the board room. Good people and policies beget better. Excellence is more creative than reactive. Innovative change is not driven by problem solving, rather it is driven by vision and a desire to fill the gap between what is and what could be, to what we want it to be.
This is my final epistle to you about developing a Policy Manual. It is now time to turn our energy and focus on proposing, deliberating, and voting. Let’s dare to govern excellently. / Larry Andrews
To rule is easy, to govern is difficult. A board that forges a new route does so at its peril. The unmasking of empty rituals is not usually appreciated. Many expect a responsible board to always do certain things. For example: approve budgets and monthly financial statements. Also, staff is expected to originate long-range plans. If these tasks are not done, then often the board is considered merely a rubber stamp for staff wishes. If the board does not follow this prescribed path, then it might be considered irresponsible.
Boldness is needed to do anything new. Also, it is important to include all relevant stakeholders. The board should not expect adaptation to be either automatic or voluntary. A conceptual struggle may ensue, not to mention ego struggles as well. One solution is to just give up and settle for the status quo. Alternatively, we would continue the pursuit of excellence at the expense of feeling fully confident and in control of the process.
The board’s predominant concern should be the benefits for the people we serve. However, often we give activities and methods so much attention; we then neglect the reason for our existence. It is the Ends policies that should consume us – “What is to be done for which people at what cost?”
Our mission is the primary task and a fragile commodity. Its compelling prescriptions must never be forgotten. The struggle with Ends issues is never complete and some aspect of Ends should be on the agenda of every meeting. Indeed, the central reason for meeting at all is the mission and mission-derived Ends policies.
Ends dialogue will never be boring because members and staff always enthusiastically hold divergent views on the priority of outputs. Rather than avoiding debate, we must encourage it. The challenge is to mold diverse views into a single voice.
Trusteeship carries compelling obligations and demands some daring. Governance is empowerment of staff within defined Limits that control risks. This calls for a mentality that allows staff to make decisions (and, sometimes, mistakes - for perfection is not realistic). Not allowing errors makes for followers, not leaders, for bureaucrats – not decision makers.
Who should be a board member? - those who can and will govern, those who will fulfill the privilege and bear the burden of trusteeship, those who have understanding and skills and willingness to govern. We need people committed to our mission, who can think in terms of systems and context, people who will participate in vigorous deliberations and then make decisions. It might be better to leave some board positions open rather than fill them with the wrong persons.
Excellence starts in the board room. Good people and policies beget better. Excellence is more creative than reactive. Innovative change is not driven by problem solving, rather it is driven by vision and a desire to fill the gap between what is and what could be, to what we want it to be.
This is my final epistle to you about developing a Policy Manual. It is now time to turn our energy and focus on proposing, deliberating, and voting. Let’s dare to govern excellently. / Larry Andrews
Board Meetings
BTMAD 10
The central board resource is the collective experience of its members. It is a struggle to balance excellence and conserve time while trying to access the wisdom of our members. This knowledge is elicited at meetings and is not easily done. The challenge is to reduce this large job, composed mostly of words, into a small amount of time. To do this, we must exercise care in selecting topics for meetings as we strive to transform diverse views into a single voice.
We meet only about 20 hours a year, so there is no time for wasteful or inappropriate topics. We cannot afford to dabble in details even though it might appear when we do so that we are being “actively engaged”. Tradition is stacked against visionary leadership activity.
The board’s job is a verbal task. Debating, clarifying, and enunciating values are talking tasks. Boards cannot address just any topics at any time and hope to excel. When boards wander aimlessly, they are being negligent. The board is a deciding body, not a debating society. We must answer the question, “What does the board exist to contribute?”
Boards should ask the question, “What will we allow ourselves to talk about?” There are three screening questions. First, “What category is this issue?” (Is it Ends, Limits, Links, or Process?) Second, “Whose issue is this?” Does it belong to the board, or to the Executive Director and staff?” Sometimes the most effective question is, “Should this issue be on the board’s agenda?”
Complete information is rarely available so the board must sometimes act with incomplete data. When we delay, the existing silent, implicit policy is still in effect. A board can delay changing a policy, but it cannot delay having one.
The goal is a short meeting agenda -shorter but deeper. We want high attendance. People will come if meetings are interesting and if they feel they are contributing and accomplishing something significant. Therefore, meetings must be worth member’s time.
Often disproportionate attention is paid to financial and legal issues at the cost of program outputs. This serves accountants and lawyers far more than it serves leaders and creators who want to add value to the world. This sways the board to looking back over its own or others shoulders, more than looking forward.
Leaders (the board) do not ask followers (staff) to tell them what their job is. Board items should be focused on the basic board contributions: 1 – links with the ownership, 2 - explicit governing policies, and 3 – assurance of ED performance.
The board should concentrate on the mission and on those in whose behalf the mission is pursued. Board time should be spent largely (2/3) creating the future, designing a strategic vision infused by a long-term mentality. We must recognize that Policy Governance is a big change in concepts and behavior. It is a new path.
The central board resource is the collective experience of its members. It is a struggle to balance excellence and conserve time while trying to access the wisdom of our members. This knowledge is elicited at meetings and is not easily done. The challenge is to reduce this large job, composed mostly of words, into a small amount of time. To do this, we must exercise care in selecting topics for meetings as we strive to transform diverse views into a single voice.
We meet only about 20 hours a year, so there is no time for wasteful or inappropriate topics. We cannot afford to dabble in details even though it might appear when we do so that we are being “actively engaged”. Tradition is stacked against visionary leadership activity.
The board’s job is a verbal task. Debating, clarifying, and enunciating values are talking tasks. Boards cannot address just any topics at any time and hope to excel. When boards wander aimlessly, they are being negligent. The board is a deciding body, not a debating society. We must answer the question, “What does the board exist to contribute?”
Boards should ask the question, “What will we allow ourselves to talk about?” There are three screening questions. First, “What category is this issue?” (Is it Ends, Limits, Links, or Process?) Second, “Whose issue is this?” Does it belong to the board, or to the Executive Director and staff?” Sometimes the most effective question is, “Should this issue be on the board’s agenda?”
Complete information is rarely available so the board must sometimes act with incomplete data. When we delay, the existing silent, implicit policy is still in effect. A board can delay changing a policy, but it cannot delay having one.
The goal is a short meeting agenda -shorter but deeper. We want high attendance. People will come if meetings are interesting and if they feel they are contributing and accomplishing something significant. Therefore, meetings must be worth member’s time.
Often disproportionate attention is paid to financial and legal issues at the cost of program outputs. This serves accountants and lawyers far more than it serves leaders and creators who want to add value to the world. This sways the board to looking back over its own or others shoulders, more than looking forward.
Leaders (the board) do not ask followers (staff) to tell them what their job is. Board items should be focused on the basic board contributions: 1 – links with the ownership, 2 - explicit governing policies, and 3 – assurance of ED performance.
The board should concentrate on the mission and on those in whose behalf the mission is pursued. Board time should be spent largely (2/3) creating the future, designing a strategic vision infused by a long-term mentality. We must recognize that Policy Governance is a big change in concepts and behavior. It is a new path.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Policy Development
BTMAD 09
The work of creating policy flows from an initial global statement down graduated / expanding levels to more detailed declarations. There is a distinctive architecture, an outline format where the preamble carries the most general meaning. This is followed by narrowing statements and then further sub-statements – cascading when necessary to further clarify the board’s intent.
The board creates policy within each of the four established categories: Ends, Limits, Links, and Process. A policy is not to be made that falls outside these boundaries. Anyone can participate in development but only the board can vote for acceptance. Experts and staff may provide input and we should also consider past survey data and decisions. The board may need additional decision information from specific experts (e.g. auditors, real estate agents). Also, we can ask the staff about operational capabilities and hazards.
The board will address policy issues starting at the top global level and only then proceed to more detailed statements. Written policies will reflect this progression. Thus a policy may consist of a single sentence or possibly several comprising a preamble and followed by more indented sub statements. The broadest principles are voiced first, while those addressing a greater level of detail follow in descending order.
The key question in development of the Executive Director Limits is: “What are we afraid might happen?” We start with a general statement and progressively develop more specific and more detailed statements, Example:
2.0 Executive Director Limits – The ED shall not cause or allow any practice, or organizational circumstance, activity, or decision that is either imprudent or in violation of commonly accepted business or professional ethics.
2.1 Paid staff and volunteers shall not be subjected…
2.2 Assets may not be inadequately maintained, unnecessarily risked, or unprotected.
2.2.1 Not fail to insure against…
2.2.2 Not allow unbonded persons to…
2.3 Budgeting for any fiscal year shall not…
Etc.
Policy architecture is not merely cosmetic. It is an important terraced device that makes clear how broadly and narrowly the board expresses itself on topics. The board can expand or contract these policies at any time.
This supports a way of organizational thinking starting from the largest issues and working toward the smaller ones. This leaves the rest of decision making in a free field that belongs to the Executive Director and staff. In this field, the ED can make choices about Ends (but always with reference to the Limits and board Ends). This frees the board to then focus on the Board / ED relationship and the board process. At some point, the board has to leave remaining judgments to the ED. The rule is, the ED is empowered to use any reasonable interpretation of the board’s words within a field of interpretation the board finds palatable.
[There is only one more book chapter. Then the various committees must start the written development process. This information is on the web at ReachGovernance.blogspot.com]
The work of creating policy flows from an initial global statement down graduated / expanding levels to more detailed declarations. There is a distinctive architecture, an outline format where the preamble carries the most general meaning. This is followed by narrowing statements and then further sub-statements – cascading when necessary to further clarify the board’s intent.
The board creates policy within each of the four established categories: Ends, Limits, Links, and Process. A policy is not to be made that falls outside these boundaries. Anyone can participate in development but only the board can vote for acceptance. Experts and staff may provide input and we should also consider past survey data and decisions. The board may need additional decision information from specific experts (e.g. auditors, real estate agents). Also, we can ask the staff about operational capabilities and hazards.
The board will address policy issues starting at the top global level and only then proceed to more detailed statements. Written policies will reflect this progression. Thus a policy may consist of a single sentence or possibly several comprising a preamble and followed by more indented sub statements. The broadest principles are voiced first, while those addressing a greater level of detail follow in descending order.
The key question in development of the Executive Director Limits is: “What are we afraid might happen?” We start with a general statement and progressively develop more specific and more detailed statements, Example:
2.0 Executive Director Limits – The ED shall not cause or allow any practice, or organizational circumstance, activity, or decision that is either imprudent or in violation of commonly accepted business or professional ethics.
2.1 Paid staff and volunteers shall not be subjected…
2.2 Assets may not be inadequately maintained, unnecessarily risked, or unprotected.
2.2.1 Not fail to insure against…
2.2.2 Not allow unbonded persons to…
2.3 Budgeting for any fiscal year shall not…
Etc.
Policy architecture is not merely cosmetic. It is an important terraced device that makes clear how broadly and narrowly the board expresses itself on topics. The board can expand or contract these policies at any time.
This supports a way of organizational thinking starting from the largest issues and working toward the smaller ones. This leaves the rest of decision making in a free field that belongs to the Executive Director and staff. In this field, the ED can make choices about Ends (but always with reference to the Limits and board Ends). This frees the board to then focus on the Board / ED relationship and the board process. At some point, the board has to leave remaining judgments to the ED. The rule is, the ED is empowered to use any reasonable interpretation of the board’s words within a field of interpretation the board finds palatable.
[There is only one more book chapter. Then the various committees must start the written development process. This information is on the web at ReachGovernance.blogspot.com]
Monday, May 23, 2011
Officers and Committees
BTMAD 08
Officers and committees are the mechanisms by which a board divides its labor. There are three aspects to consider: minimalism, preservation of the Executive Director (ED) role, and board holism.
Structure is best kept to the minimum necessary to accomplish the task. Establishing the fewest officers and committees required by the tasks will result in clearer rules and a smoother process. A chairman and secretary are the minimum required by law. Additional officers should be added carefully and only when necessary. Similarly with committees, only those the board feels are really necessary should be established.
Accountability is best when delegation is traceable, unitary, and balanced with respect to authority and responsibility. For delegation to work, each link from superior to subordinate must be clear to all. If the board is the boss, then the principle of unity requires that all members speak as one and preserve a single channel of communication. The ED works for the board as a whole.
A holistic board is a single organizational position. Consequently, board officers exist to help the board do its job, not as powers unto themselves. The chair is responsible for the integrity of the board process. The secretary is responsible for the integrity of board documents. These responsibilities serve the wholeness of governance.
The chair is the guardian of what the board is doing and the secretary is the guardian of what the board has done. The chair applies discipline to group responsibility, and with as much affection as firmness, confronts the board with its tasks. The quality of governance depends on the skill of the chair.
The secretary keeps the official records and certifies board actions, policies, and minutes. What the board “says” includes only those statements passed in an official process. Detailed narrative minutes are unnecessary and detract from the board’s “one voice”, as well as filling the record with matters of negligible significance.
Committees are a danger to the board acting as a whole. The only way a board can create unified policies is to do so as a whole. Consequently, when committees assist the board in decisions, they should do “pre-board” work, not “sub-board” work. Pre-board works are committee recommendations (plural) for board debate and decision. Presenting only one option is a flaw because better decisions can only be made if several alternatives are available. The board needs to know the choices and consequences, for only then can in ponder, debate, and vote intelligently. Real work is done as a whole, not in committees.
Board policy making is divided into four divisions. One option is to structure committees around these categories. One committee does preparatory work for board choices about Ends, a second prepares choices about ED limitations, a third for policies about board process, and a final one prepares policies on Board/Executive relationship. These committees can be ad hoc and disbanded when the task is complete.
This approach to board committees differs substantially from conventional practice. Traditionally, committees and officers monitor staff performance. However, if criteria and systems are in place as described in BTMAD 06, then that function is covered and committees need not monitor.
Officers and committees are the mechanisms by which a board divides its labor. There are three aspects to consider: minimalism, preservation of the Executive Director (ED) role, and board holism.
Structure is best kept to the minimum necessary to accomplish the task. Establishing the fewest officers and committees required by the tasks will result in clearer rules and a smoother process. A chairman and secretary are the minimum required by law. Additional officers should be added carefully and only when necessary. Similarly with committees, only those the board feels are really necessary should be established.
Accountability is best when delegation is traceable, unitary, and balanced with respect to authority and responsibility. For delegation to work, each link from superior to subordinate must be clear to all. If the board is the boss, then the principle of unity requires that all members speak as one and preserve a single channel of communication. The ED works for the board as a whole.
A holistic board is a single organizational position. Consequently, board officers exist to help the board do its job, not as powers unto themselves. The chair is responsible for the integrity of the board process. The secretary is responsible for the integrity of board documents. These responsibilities serve the wholeness of governance.
The chair is the guardian of what the board is doing and the secretary is the guardian of what the board has done. The chair applies discipline to group responsibility, and with as much affection as firmness, confronts the board with its tasks. The quality of governance depends on the skill of the chair.
The secretary keeps the official records and certifies board actions, policies, and minutes. What the board “says” includes only those statements passed in an official process. Detailed narrative minutes are unnecessary and detract from the board’s “one voice”, as well as filling the record with matters of negligible significance.
Committees are a danger to the board acting as a whole. The only way a board can create unified policies is to do so as a whole. Consequently, when committees assist the board in decisions, they should do “pre-board” work, not “sub-board” work. Pre-board works are committee recommendations (plural) for board debate and decision. Presenting only one option is a flaw because better decisions can only be made if several alternatives are available. The board needs to know the choices and consequences, for only then can in ponder, debate, and vote intelligently. Real work is done as a whole, not in committees.
Board policy making is divided into four divisions. One option is to structure committees around these categories. One committee does preparatory work for board choices about Ends, a second prepares choices about ED limitations, a third for policies about board process, and a final one prepares policies on Board/Executive relationship. These committees can be ad hoc and disbanded when the task is complete.
This approach to board committees differs substantially from conventional practice. Traditionally, committees and officers monitor staff performance. However, if criteria and systems are in place as described in BTMAD 06, then that function is covered and committees need not monitor.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
The Board's Responsibility For Itself
BTMAD 07
Policy writing will be a redesign of the board’s job. Our job description flows from our trusteeship for the legal owners of Reach – the community we serve and represent. Ownership is distinguished from stakeholders (clients, staff, donors, etc.). There is some overlap, such as a staff member also living in the area, and therefore also being an owner. Reach owners are the people of our larger community, (30 mile radius centered on our buildings?).
The board is responsible for its own development and performance – not the Executive Director or staff. Only responsible stewardship can justify the board’s considerable authority. Being warm, willing to attend meetings, inclined to donate money, and to show interest in organizational subjects are desirable but not sufficient. Many boards fail to realize the throttle belongs to them.
We must deal with the implications of being a group. People differ in their comfort with confrontation and expressing feelings and ideas. They also differ in fears, hopes, optimism, and excitement – all which contribute to interpersonal dynamics. These present challenges quite different from organizational modeling, rational structuring and job designs.
Governing is sometimes shaped by personalities rather than issues. Over politeness and power-based confrontation each spring from valuing personal aspects more than issues. We need to develop productive discussions and confrontation. If not, even polite people either bore or bite each other to death. All board members have a responsibility to contribute to the integrity of the board’s process.
An effective board process starts by clarifying how it will bridge between the owners and the producers (staff). First establish what the board exists to accomplish, and then form will follow function. Conventional job descriptions are lists of job activities. It is more powerful to omit tasks and focus on why activities take place – the intended outcomes.
There are three mandatory board products. First is linkage to the ownership. This includes things like fulfilling our fiduciary responsibility, guarding against undue risk, determining program priorities, and directing organizational activity. We are always accountable but not always directly responsible.
The second product is explicit governing policies. We detail the Ends, the ED limits, the board/ED relationship and the board process. Third is assurance of executive performance. The board is culpable if the ED fails to fulfill the explicit board policies. This requires systematic monitoring. These three undelegable job contributions are the unique responsibilities of a governing board.
In addition, there are other optional products. Fundraising is an option. Legislative matters are another. Public relations is yet another. If we want to assume any items beyond the basic three above, then they must be made explicit, but will always be secondary to the three primary products. For instance, fundraising may be critical, but it is not more important than forming an organization worth raising funds for. Taking on optional activities is not rigorous enough. The board’s responsibility is not activity, however busy and impressive, but results.
We must be the moral trustees for the owners (many of whom do not know they are the owners). We need to know their needs, concerns, demands, and fears. To do this, we have to engage owners on a personal basis in conversations and meetings. We have to listen and communicate.
Policy writing will be a redesign of the board’s job. Our job description flows from our trusteeship for the legal owners of Reach – the community we serve and represent. Ownership is distinguished from stakeholders (clients, staff, donors, etc.). There is some overlap, such as a staff member also living in the area, and therefore also being an owner. Reach owners are the people of our larger community, (30 mile radius centered on our buildings?).
The board is responsible for its own development and performance – not the Executive Director or staff. Only responsible stewardship can justify the board’s considerable authority. Being warm, willing to attend meetings, inclined to donate money, and to show interest in organizational subjects are desirable but not sufficient. Many boards fail to realize the throttle belongs to them.
We must deal with the implications of being a group. People differ in their comfort with confrontation and expressing feelings and ideas. They also differ in fears, hopes, optimism, and excitement – all which contribute to interpersonal dynamics. These present challenges quite different from organizational modeling, rational structuring and job designs.
Governing is sometimes shaped by personalities rather than issues. Over politeness and power-based confrontation each spring from valuing personal aspects more than issues. We need to develop productive discussions and confrontation. If not, even polite people either bore or bite each other to death. All board members have a responsibility to contribute to the integrity of the board’s process.
An effective board process starts by clarifying how it will bridge between the owners and the producers (staff). First establish what the board exists to accomplish, and then form will follow function. Conventional job descriptions are lists of job activities. It is more powerful to omit tasks and focus on why activities take place – the intended outcomes.
There are three mandatory board products. First is linkage to the ownership. This includes things like fulfilling our fiduciary responsibility, guarding against undue risk, determining program priorities, and directing organizational activity. We are always accountable but not always directly responsible.
The second product is explicit governing policies. We detail the Ends, the ED limits, the board/ED relationship and the board process. Third is assurance of executive performance. The board is culpable if the ED fails to fulfill the explicit board policies. This requires systematic monitoring. These three undelegable job contributions are the unique responsibilities of a governing board.
In addition, there are other optional products. Fundraising is an option. Legislative matters are another. Public relations is yet another. If we want to assume any items beyond the basic three above, then they must be made explicit, but will always be secondary to the three primary products. For instance, fundraising may be critical, but it is not more important than forming an organization worth raising funds for. Taking on optional activities is not rigorous enough. The board’s responsibility is not activity, however busy and impressive, but results.
We must be the moral trustees for the owners (many of whom do not know they are the owners). We need to know their needs, concerns, demands, and fears. To do this, we have to engage owners on a personal basis in conversations and meetings. We have to listen and communicate.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Policy Manual Presentation Meeting 14 May 2011
SUMMARY OF POLICY MANUAL PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD ON 14 MAY 2011
The topic is “Do We Need A Policy Manual?”
Why? - To:
Set standards
Establish boundaries
Promote sustainability
Focus on mission and culture
Answer the question – “Are we doing what we should be doing?”
Govern (as opposed to “manage”)
Provide leadership
Clarify accountability
Record values and perspectives
Emphasize proactive over reactive agenda
Orient to the future rather than the past activities
What is a Policy Manual?
A Policy Manual is a declaration of the values and perspectives of the board.
It is a written record of the decisions, and pronouncements of the board.
The Policy Manual establishes standards and details criteria for performance evaluation.
How do we write a Policy Manual?
It is a 2 step process: debate, then decide
There are 4 major sections of the Policy Manual:
1 - “Ends” – the mission and goals of Reach.
2 - “Executive Limits” – instructions on what the Executive Director must avoid.
3 - “”Board / Executive Relationship” - how authority and accountability are transferred.
4 – “Board Process” – how the board conducts itself and relates to the external world.
Following on this presentation, the following committee topics were assigned::
Ends - ? (I did not write this done but it will be in minutes)
Executive Limits – Executive
Board / ED relationship – ? (I did not write this done but it will be in minutes)
Board Process – Governance
Following are “starter statements” for each section:
Ends - “People with intellectual and developmental disabilities will achieve their potential and well being in a safe and happy community.”
Limits – “The ED shall not cause or allow a practice or circumstance that is unlawful, imprudent, or in violation of commonly accepted business and professional practices and ethics”.
Board/ executive relationship – “The board’s connection to the organization and its activities is only through the Executive Director.”
Board process – “The purpose of the board is to see to it that Reach achieves the appropriate results for appropriate persons and at an appropriate cost while avoiding actions and situations prohibited by the board.
The topic is “Do We Need A Policy Manual?”
Why? - To:
Set standards
Establish boundaries
Promote sustainability
Focus on mission and culture
Answer the question – “Are we doing what we should be doing?”
Govern (as opposed to “manage”)
Provide leadership
Clarify accountability
Record values and perspectives
Emphasize proactive over reactive agenda
Orient to the future rather than the past activities
What is a Policy Manual?
A Policy Manual is a declaration of the values and perspectives of the board.
It is a written record of the decisions, and pronouncements of the board.
The Policy Manual establishes standards and details criteria for performance evaluation.
How do we write a Policy Manual?
It is a 2 step process: debate, then decide
There are 4 major sections of the Policy Manual:
1 - “Ends” – the mission and goals of Reach.
2 - “Executive Limits” – instructions on what the Executive Director must avoid.
3 - “”Board / Executive Relationship” - how authority and accountability are transferred.
4 – “Board Process” – how the board conducts itself and relates to the external world.
Following on this presentation, the following committee topics were assigned::
Ends - ? (I did not write this done but it will be in minutes)
Executive Limits – Executive
Board / ED relationship – ? (I did not write this done but it will be in minutes)
Board Process – Governance
Following are “starter statements” for each section:
Ends - “People with intellectual and developmental disabilities will achieve their potential and well being in a safe and happy community.”
Limits – “The ED shall not cause or allow a practice or circumstance that is unlawful, imprudent, or in violation of commonly accepted business and professional practices and ethics”.
Board/ executive relationship – “The board’s connection to the organization and its activities is only through the Executive Director.”
Board process – “The purpose of the board is to see to it that Reach achieves the appropriate results for appropriate persons and at an appropriate cost while avoiding actions and situations prohibited by the board.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)