Policy Governance (R)

There is a governance model, developed by John Carver and elaborated at http://www.carvergovernance.com/, which describes one way an organization can structure itself to best serve its mission and the needs of its internal and external constituents. I was first introduced to the concept as the "Carver Model", and I'll use that phrase here, since "Policy Governance" is a registered trademark of John and Mirriam Carver.

Let me start by saying that I think the principles behind the model are sound. I agree that a governing board or council should work toward a model in which it is responsible exclusively for high-level decisions; a board should certainly limit itself to discussing mission, goals, policies, and limits on executive authority. When a board is focused on minutiae (the day-to-day operations and interactions of staff, micromanagement of assets, etc.) then the life of the organization grinds to a halt because the board is a bottleneck. First UU Church Houston (First UU) has dealt with this in the past by delegation, but perhaps in a less than optimal way; perhaps the least appealing option exercised was an "executive committee" made up of the board president and some other leaders which met quietly each week and which made a lot of decisions, some of which were unpopular or challenged at later board meetings. The limits on the authority of the committee were not formalized and minutes were not typically kept, which made it difficult to argue that the church was being run in a transparent fashion.

The Carver Model thus describes an organizational structure in which an Executive reports to the Board, and the Board sets goals, policies, and limits on the Executive so the Executive can independently run the Church (see here). This is a good division of authority and responsibility; the Board has a focus on the forest, the Executive on the trees. The devil is in the detail of the composition of the Executive.

Although some congregations empower an Executive team, others place all the authority in the hands of the minister. A hybrid example is one where the Executive is a team but is dominated by ministers. I believe the last two models are inherently flawed because in the typical UU church, minsters are granted tenure. This privilege makes it difficult for the Board to effectively use any leverage to make sure the Executive continues to perform their duties consistently with the policies and limits set by the Board on behalf of the congregation at large. Ministers who for whatever reason begin to have a strained relationship with the whole or significant parts of the congregation are difficult to remove when their position becomes untenable, and a congregation can become severely fractured during the process. A model which vests complete authority (or a majority influence) over staff and spending in a tenured minister or ministers is in my opinion a dangerous mistake.

What would be a better model? There are benefits to having a single Executive (the CEO) who is empowered to make final decisions over operations. Such an person can be effective without calling meetings and can be held to account when they fail to execute their duties responsibly. When a decision needs to be made, an independent CEO (not a minister or a member of the Board) can make it with few concerns about a potential conflict of interest. To keep the CEO responsive to the Board and the congregation, this position should be filled by a lay person whose employment is controlled by the Board; they should be removed by a simple Board vote if they fail to perform their duties.

There are also benefits to having an Executive team but I think they may be inherently harder to realize. A team can perhaps be more available than a single person; in a situation which needs a quick decision it may be more likely to reach one of several people than one alone. The team can also take input from various areas of the church and balance them accordingly. It however seems harder to assign responsibility to a group when things go wrong; whom do you hold accountable in such a situation? Perhaps the team can be chosen by the congregation but members can be removed by the Board (triggering another selection process) if they are not performing their duties.

Let me close by saying I think a church can benefit from removing their governing council from daily operations and by having an independent Executive. I find the model which grants the Executive role to a tenured minister unappealing because it confuses having charismatic leadership in spiritual matters with the dangerous situation of having a charismatic leader of the bureaucracy. I suggest that First UU in particular consider having either an Executive team (on which the minister can sit, in minority) or a paid staff person identified as Manager or CEO.