This is an enduring question because most board and staff leaders
insist on a static structural rather than a functional answer.[If your bylaws specify the existence of many
committees, then you will strive to operate all of those committees.It is usually better to mention the power to
create committees in bylaws rather than specify a set of committees.] The
only meaningful answer is to thoughtfully address another pair of questions:1)How
many committees to you need and 2) How many committees can you effectively
support?Especially for organizations
with limited boards and staff to support them, it doesn’t make much sense to
have lots of committees because only a few committees can be formed that can
meet an adequate number of times with adequate staff support.
How do you figure out how many committees are needed?A simple approach is two create a pile of potential
committee work topics from two sources.First, go back to basic board responsibilities and you will find at
least ten depending upon which standard list you use.Second, think about major strategic
challenges the organization is facing and significant operational issues where
board guidance is needed.Next, divide
the big pile of topics into thematic groupings and see how many little piles
you now have.These smaller piles can
serve as the foundation or point of focus for a committee.
For newer, smaller or less functional organizations, it is highly
recommended that you start with just two committees, one focused on general
guidance, board-building and oversight issues (“governance”) and one focused on
outward facing promotional, communication and fund raising issues (“development”).Once the motivation and capacity evolves to
manage more than two committees, you can always create more, if your bylaws allow
for this (and they should or can be easily adjusted for this purpose).What is important, is not how many committees
there are but whether the important work that is best performed by committees is
being accomplished.
Assuming a calendar operating year, now is a great time to
review financial trends and identify needs for any board decision making. With half the year elapsed, take a look at
major categories, such as salaries and benefits, other operating expenses,
travel, capital outlay.If significantly
less or more than 50% of funds have been expended year-to-date, was this
expected?If not, what is the
explanation?If money is being spent
more rapidly than anticipated, can annual expense targets be trimmed to keep
the budget in balance or can a year end deficit be projected and tolerated? If
less money is being spent than planned, should expenses be increased i n
another area or should a year ending positive balance be planned for (maybe you
can add to that endowment or keep a cushion going into a year of uncertainty?).
Centrally, does the board have confidence in the staff’s
approach to managing the budget as approved at the beginning of the fiscal year
or is there a need to help restore a balance?It is not micromanaging for a board to ask basic questions about trends
and explore any concerns that arise.Reviewing strategy for significant adjustments with the board likewise,
can be a sign of strength and trust-building, not weakness, on behalf of a confident
staff leader.
Sometimes when we locate a new board member, we just can’t
wait to get them to the next meeting.We
might be anxious due to low attendance, not having a quorum or desperate because
one of our burnt –out members is pleading with us to let him/her go.But we should never be in such a hurry that
we skip, forget or skimp on the orientation.There is no one right way but most procedures we have seen seem to be insufficient
to set up realistic expectations.Perhaps
it is establishing those expectations that are the true value and necessary
minimum outcome of an orientation procedure.
Let’s use the standard reporting questions as a basis for
thinking through possible orientation procedures.Who
should do it?A fellow board member of
some sort would be optimal, whether it is the chair, governance/membership
committee chair, an old hand or even a member just completing their rookie
year.There are reasonable justifications
for all of these choices.A staff member
could do all or part of this but that person could never provide a satisfactory
substitute for a peer perspective.What
should be covered?Hopefully, the
prospective candidate was already exposed to the mission, direction,
accomplishments, activities and demographics of the organization.If not, that information needs to be
presented.Many times, a tour of service
and office facilities makes sense.Certainly
covering the job description and anticipated activity pattern for a new trustee
should be covered.Where and how should
it happen?This may depend on
circumstances.If there is an incoming
cohort, there could be a formal training in an appropriately conducive
environment.If there is only one approved
candidate starting out, many informal settings would work.
When should this happen?Maybe before the first bull board or committee meeting is best but that
may not always be practical.Maybe the
orientation can occur over time, some before meeting the group and some
after.If board members as a whole
receive ongoing training, then the new member can benefit alongside the veterans.Maybe mentoring by an assigned buddy can
continue throughout the first year of service.Why do an orientation?Enabling board
members to embrace shared expectations from the beginning that are consistent with
the expectations of other existing members and that are reinforced throughout
the service life of a board member is perhaps the minimum foundation to put in
place to create an effective board.
Confusion about what trustees do is evident during the launch
of many organizations and a harmful mindset can linger over time.It is challenging to create distancein the beginning and in a need to move
forward quickly, many early boards are populated with people that:a)the
founder directly knows and trusts, b) comes directly from the pool of potential
service clients, c)have very limited
time and d) have limited experience building and managing an organization.
Some of these people make great advisors and can someday be
cultivated to do more for the organization but they are frequently unable to
excel in the trustee role.It is easy to
overlook the fact that an organization can have as many advisory groups as it
can effectively support but only a relatively few trustees are needed.
Among other responsibilities, trustees 1) take
responsibility for the direction of the organization, 2) monitor expenditures
and performance, 3) assist in managing the relationships needed to promote the organization
to its stakeholders and attract adequate funding and 4) challenge staff leaders
and hold them accountable, standing ready to replace leaders if necessary. Having “Yes” people as trustees is attractive
and expedient but not in the best long term interest of the organization and
the community.Taking the time to
shuffle existing advisors and trustees into their proper places is always worth
the effort.
Sometimes a board gets stuck, holding meetings but not making
a discernible impact.When this happens,
it is tempting to look for problems or try to assign blame.In this situation, many trustees feel
powerless, believing that there is nothing they know how to do to improve the
situation.There are always options,
such as:bring in some new members,
change who is in charge, get some advice on what do differently, do some goal-setting,
focus on a new strategy, or get some training.
What’s most important is to do something different to
re-start meaningful board activity.Is
there one right way to do this?No,
whatever works ends up being a good thing to do.Waiting for the best answer or waiting for
staff to make it happen rarely works.Just the act of trying can actually lead to action that brings results.Go ahead and declare a new activity as your
restart button and give it a push!