Past President Cynthia Cottam, President Patricia Wright, Summer Minister Nica Eaton-Guinn, and the Rev. Dr. Ken Brown at a workshop on governance held at the church on Saturday, July 11. Photo by Charles Haskell.

The Rev. Dr. Ken Brown’s Governance Workshop

By Steve White

The Rev. Dr. Ken Brown, at our Board’s invitation, presented a three-hour “Governance Workshop” on Saturday, July 11. All nine board members were present, as was our Summer Minister. Also present were 15 other church members (a mix of new members and long-time members, most of whom have served or are serving in leadership roles in the church).

Ken is on the UUA Staff, for the last 16 years serving, alongside of Tera Little, our sabbatical minister this coming fall, as the Congregational Life Specialist for the Pacific Southwest District, the group of 50 UU churches in Southern California and Arizona. He noted that the PSWD board and staff have moved toward policy-style governance over the last few years. He serves as one of the consultants to district churches and presents numerous workshops on common church-related topics. He became a UU minister 41 years ago, and served several congregations around the U.S. for twenty-some years before joining the UUA staff.

He noticed the “Coming of Age Covenant” on the wall of the classroom: “To Be Present, To Have Fun, Not to Be Too Hard, No Laughing at One Another, Respect Other People’s Opinion, Listen to Each Other, No Phones, Step Up/Step Back, Judgment Free” as a good example of a covenant, as opposed to a creed. He reminded us that we are a covenantal faith and that developing covenants is an important aspect of our UU tradition. Throughout his talk, Ken returned regularly to the importance of talking among ourselves and always dealing with each other and issues in a relational way.

He described boards as having five basic functions: 1) develop & hold up mission/vision statements, 2) define policy, 3) develop a strategic plan, 4) provide for financial responsibilities and 5) perform ongoing assessments. He said that the role of the board was to make sure that essential things happened, such as fundraising. He noted that leadership in UU churches is hard work, especially as we place a high value on “process.”

The most-often neglected board function is “assessment” — the ongoing monitoring of all church functions, activities, and processes as compared to the policies that describe them, in relation to advancing the mission and ministries of the church. Well-thought-out assessment tools are required. He did not think that assessments should be done anonymously, but rather that people should convey their assessments by speaking out and discussing them with each other. An opinion is not worth much if it does not have a person attached to it. He recommended that assessments be done by “focus groups,” specifically including newcomers and limiting the role of elders, while always asking “Who’s Missing?” Ken distinguished “assessment” from “evaluation,” relative to “honest oversight.”

Ken said that the book “Governance and Ministry — Rethinking Board Leadership” (2009) by Dan Hotchkiss, a UU Minister and Alban Institute senior consultant, was the source of many of the ideas about governance being considered by or already adapted for the UUA and many UU churches. [Note: Our President, Patricia Wright, made copies of this book available to the congregation last fall. Since then the Board has devoted substantial time over several board meeting studying various chapters in order to become well informed about whether to further explore changes to our congregation’s governance.] Several who have read the book noted that it offers a wide range of possibilities, some of which we already use in our congregation’s organization, stating that UU Santa Monica’s style of organization is already a type of policy-style governance.

He defined “governance,” as embodied in “policies,” as defining the relationships and authority among the various parts of the church organization, whereas the bylaws describe the components of the organization by defining basic rules, such as how one becomes a member, procedures for calling and dismissing ministers, requirements for electing board members, and procedures for approving a budget. Bylaws should be minimalist. He stated that “policies” are defined and modified by the board, not the congregation, with bylaws limited to a few basic matters. The group found this to be a difficult distinction. Governance by policies is intended to empower the people of the congregation to conduct the ministry of the congregation and fulfill our mission. Policy is about the relationships and roles within the church. For example, how does the minister relate to the staff? Ken admitted that development of policies is very difficult. The group struggled to understand his statements. For instance, policies set the “big picture”; you can carry out the ministry of the church “within these boundaries,”then the committees are freer to plan their activities. They do not have to go to the board for approval of everything as long as they function within the boundaries of the policies. Policy governance gives more liberty to the committees, their activies are not so restricted by the board. The board’s role is enforcement within the limits or boundaries set by the policies.

Mid-size churches such as ours, with 338 members, often move towards “policy-style” governance. [Note: “Policy Governance” is a registered trademark for specific secular rules created by John Carver. John Carver is an adjunct professor in the Institute for Nonprofit Organizations at University of Georgia School of Social Work.] Ken Brown warned of the perils of taking Carver’s ideas too literally, specifically his rule that the minister should be the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the church. According to Ken, “governance by policy” does not mean that the minister becomes the CEO of our congregation. Patricia, our President, stated that this is not the intent of our Board. A UU minister is more of a facilitator, not a CEO. Ken noted that in UU churches the minister “has no authority to tell people what to do” but rather facilitates processes. The facilitative role of the minister is to help empower people to get going or to help them relate, for instance, by promoting awareness of the UU Seven Principles and enabling us to implement them in our ways of relating to one another. Ken was adamant that “in no way is the role of the minister to be over anyone.” A number of people expressed that they did not want the minister to function in our congregation as a CEO.

A member asked “Why?” — what problems or issues prompted the Board’s interest in studying and possibly changing our governance? A specific UU Santa Monica response was pre-empted by Ken proceeding to address how to determine whether a church needs changes to its governance He cited some circumstances: 1) “most congregations don’t know how they are governed”; 2) reduce ambiguity and frustration by simplification; and, 3) provide a means to deal with conflicts, for instance, if rudeness and personal criticism have become common. A sense that our church is having conflict was brought up a number of times in a number of contexts by the group. In one instance, someone asked if our church should be dealing with changing our governance while we have so much conflict. About this, Ken said that “you must deal with conflict while dealing with governance.” He also suggested that some changes were needed to reflect the expanding roles of most UU ministers in church management and operations. Tweaking of policies and bylaws and adapting some policy governance ideas is what most UU congregations have done. Patricia said that this is what our Board seeks to explore. Ken stated that, in general, 80% of the members of most congregations have no interest in governance and simply want to have good Sunday services and a good RE Program. At most, 20% are involved or interested, with perhaps another 10% having some mild curiosity. [Note: about 120 of our 330 members at the time (36%) participated in our latest Annual Business Meeting in person, by absentee, or by proxy. In the fall of 2009, the Settled Minister Search Committee Congregational Survey had 209 responses, about 50% of our congregation at the time.]

One attendee stated that she doesn’t feel heard, that despite being a long-time member, she feels ignored and excluded by “insiders.” Another long-time member said she felt not heard, condescended to, and not given explanations by leaders. Ken said it is the board’s responsibility to listen to the congregation and transparency must be at all levels. Ken said that there needs to be a place for people to feel heard. He recommended establishing a “Covenant of Right Relations,” defining a process for setting and assessing boundaries, providing a respectful place where it is OK to be candid, as well as providing other processes for maintaining constructive behaviors. He noted that “transparency”can take many forms, as it is the conversation between the board and the congregation. Transparency is providing information to everybody by multiple means. [Note: there is a gap between what our leaders have regarded as “transparent” and the expectations of some church members, a difference that should be explored.]

Ken suggested that one means of opening the board processes and discussions to the congregation is for the board to hold open meetings after services on a quarterly basis, rather than rely entirely on monthly newsletter columns. This idea met with much approval, although some noted the loss of efficiency. The board should publicize its agenda and goals and invite participation. He then stated that board meetings should never last more than two hours; longer meetings indicate a lack of focus, lack of delegation, and unclear governance procedures. This idea was met with enthusiasm. Some past presidents stated that their board meetings had never lasted more than two hours.

One element of “policy-style” governance might be the transformation from our current administrative and other committees into about six “Ministry Teams.” Within “boundaries” set by policies and budgets, the groups are empowered to “do ministry” without needing to obtain board approval. This is intended to enable new ideas and initiatives to be started more easily, without frequently having to go to the board for approval. [Note: This is somewhat different than the way we in Santa Monica currently do things, as some committees often do come to the Board with proposals for approval, while others do operate more independently.] The goal of governance by policy would allow more freedom for all committees to do independent work on the “ministry” of the congregation. [Note: A distinction must be made between board committees (finance, personnel, stewardship/pledge) and activity/affinity groups, which although referred to as “committees”, are functionally “task forces” or “programs.”]

Ken contended that strong policies provide continuity, so that church functions don’t depend entirely on the style and interests of whoever is Board President. A past president contended that the purpose of the our Bylaws was precisely to provide that continuity, much like our Constitution protects the citizens from departures from our principles attempted by the President or the Congress. Policies can limit the common inclination of volunteer leaders to micro-manage.

Ken presented a diagram by William Bridges of the process of change over time. [Note: William Bridges was an organizational consultant who emphasized the importance of understanding transitions as a key for organizations to succeed in making changes.] Change is always with us, but we get stuck in transitions. Successful change requires gut/ emotional levels of conversation after defining what, where, and how, moving from personalities to issues. Sometimes a few loud voices block change. [Note: on the other hand, members with concerns often remain quietly on the sidelines, not wanting to raise questions that might provoke controversy and challenge our ability to “dwell together in peace.”] Some attendees noted that very little governance communication happens outside of Board meetings.

Another important, but often neglected, board function is leadership development. He advocated replacing the Nominating Committee, active only from January to May, with a year-round Leadership Development team. He stated that the personal interests, experience, and skills required at each level (member, committee member, chair, board member) are not the same, with someone eager to run a program not necessarily having the broad experience and perspective appropriate to a board member.

However, the spouse of a long-time member of the Nominating Committee said that this model is not even close to how the committee actually functions. He said that often well-qualified choices for leadership roles decline the nomination, leaving the Nominating Committee more and more anxious for some willing, dutiful members to step forward, often after protesting that they are unqualified. As a consequence, new Board members may struggle until they have learned the ropes. They need to learn what is expected of Board members, how the church is organized, what the policies and procedures are that guide the church’s activities, and to learn the recent history of the Board so they understand the context of decision making at the Board level. [Note: However, this broader recruitment net often leads to the inclusion of a wider variety of members, who grow into effective leaders. An analysis of why many decline to take on leadership roles, as well as clarification of the roles, might lower the perceived barriers to serving.]

All in attendance regarded the workshop as stimulating, thought provoking, and a good start to further discussions about healthy processes for defining, evaluating, and gaining consensus about possible appropriate changes.

Steve White is a Past President of our congregation. He served as the scribe for the Committee on Money during the 2014- 2015 church year. He currently serves as Chair of the Membership Committee. His wife, Sue Stoyanoff, is co-chair of the Committee on Ministry. Contributors to this article were Patricia Wright, Nica Eaton-Guinn, Beth Brownlie, Rick Teplitz, and Diane Fletcher-Hoppe. Editorial comments were received from Ken Brown, Kit Shaw, Joe Engleman, Kim Miller, Sue Stoyanoff, and Charles Haskell.

 

The Annual Interweave / Women’s Alliance Picnic

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quotes About COMPASSION

Bettye Barclay has provided this list of quotes about our ministerial theme for August. Daily quotes also appear in the weekly electronic announcements.

Week 1. Some people think only intellect counts: knowing how to solve problems, knowing how to get by, knowing how to identify an advantage and seize it. But the functions of intellect are insufficient without courage, love, friendship, compassion, and empathy. — Dean Koontz

Week 2. Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them humanity cannot survive. — Dalai Lama

Week 3. The dew of compassion is a tear. — Lord Byron

Week 4. The individual is capable of both great compassion and great indifference. He has it within his means to nourish the former and outgrow the latter. — Norman Cousins

Week 5. Give children at least as many chances to be compassionate as they have to be competitive. — Erica Layman