The Matter of Governance
by Lawrence Downing
The recent letter from the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), addressed to the president of La Sierra University, identified several areas that were of concern to WASC officials. WASC questioned the composition of the University governing board, the role and authority of the University president and that of the board chair, the potential conflict of interest as evidenced by those board members who sit on the boards of other Adventist educational institutions, and the board’s independence to fulfill its responsibilities to the University.
The points enumerated in the WASC letter are not limited to educational institutions. I believe these concerns apply with equal force to every level of Adventist church governance. The recent dust-ups that have roiled within the Adventist church are evidence that governance is a significant issue.
As I recalled past events that have had a negative impact on the Adventist church: the Pacific Press – Mary Kay Silver matter, the Davenport fiasco, the Harris Pine sale, and others like these, the thought came that it might be instructive to re-visit an old and trusted source. I turned to Prof. Peter Drucker’s works.
In his book, Managing the Non-profit Organization, Drucker writes the following:
To be effective, a non-profit needs a strong board, but a board that does a board’s work. The board not only helps think through the institution’s mission, it is the guardian of that mission, and makes sure the organization lives up to its basic commitment. The board has the job of making sure the non-profit has competent management — and the right management. The board’s role is to appraise the performance of the organization. And, in a crisis, the board members may have to be firefighters.
A board that understands its real obligations and sets goals for its own performance won’t meddle. But if you leave the board’s role open and undefined, you’ll get one that interferes with details and yet doesn’t do its job.
Wherever I’ve seen a non-profit institution with a strong board that gives the right kind of leadership, it represented very hard work on the part of the chief executive officer — not only to bring the right people onto the board but to meld them into a team and point them in the right direction. In my experience, the chief executive officer is the conscience of the board. That may explain why the strong, effective boards I’ve seen are almost all boards where members come on through a nominating process. I very rarely have seen a truly strong board in co-ops, for instance, where boards are elected by the membership. There the chairperson has no say about who sits on the board, or has the CEO. Then you get boards which may represent this or that segment of the membership, but they don’t represent the organization, at least in my experience.
Over the door to the non-profit’s boardroom there should be an inscription in big letters that says: Membership on this board is not power, it is responsibility. (pp. 157-158).
In his classic, Management: Tasks, Responsibillities, Practices, Drucker lists three tasks of an executive board:
- The institution does need a review organ — a group of experienced people of integrity, stature, proven performance capacity and proven willingness to work. This is the group management can talk to.
- An effective and functioning board is needed to remove top management that fails to perform.
- The institution needs a “‘public and community relations’ organ.” It needs easy and direct access to various, “‘publics’ and ‘constituents.’ It needs to hear from them and to be able to talk to them.” (pp. 631-632.)
In the Adventist church structure, (though not in the health systems) board members are selected by the constituents. In the Adventist conference structures, the president (CEO), by policy, is the board chair. In his role as chair, the president can set the agenda, control the discussion, and use his position to assure the vote is as he desires. (And in conferences at every level, the president is a he.) This administrative construct has high potential to interfere with Drucker’s view of an effective board, whose task is to monitor the organization’s practices, hold the organization to its mission and, if necessary remove the CEO. The cozy Adventist system is further complicated by the fact that a high percentage of the board members are church employees who are themselves beholden to the president for their jobs, advancement and financial security.
When the governance of the local church is examined there are different but related matters from those associated with the conference administrative levels. A church board is composed of members of a local parish. The board is composed of individuals who are members by virtue of their office, by nomination from the church members, or by board invitation. The Church Manual stipulates the pastor is board chair.
It is to be noted that viable options exist to modify the governance structure that now exists within the Adventist church. On the local level, which is where most funds that support the Adventist church originate, the local church boards can elect a person, other than the pastor, to chair the board. Many congregations follow this practice.
On the conference levels, church members, at the time of the organization’s constituency meeting, can amend the constitution and by-laws to state that someone other than the president is to chair the executive board and define how that person is to be selected. This change will not be welcomed by the presidents and other conference administrative staff. The present system is comfortable and politically safe. If constituents wish to maintain the status quo, then do nothing. Before the decision to take no action, reflect for a moment on what Drucker wrote about the effective board. Does he describe the present Adventist governance structure? Does what he wrote make sense? If it does, how should we church members respond? This is, after all, our church. Administrators, including G. C. President Ted Wilson publically say they are our servants. How do we want them to serve us and how can their service be optimized? These are our questions to answer!
Wow, Larry, this is very provocative! I have a question though. It is my sense that, even in the NAD, the overwhelming majority of the active laity trusts and wants institutional Boards to be under the direction and ultimate control of clerical leaders. The model of institutional sisterhood is to submit tribal loyalties and potential conflicts to the "greater good". Conflicts are to be surrendered, not protected. Doesn't the Pacific Union Conference, and by extension the Church, "own" La Sierra? How can you tell the owner of an institution that he has too great a voice, and too many conflicts to control how that institution is run, unless of course you have surrendered de facto or de jure autonomy to others for the sake of image or credibility?
Therein lies the conundrum for La Sierra. You don't exactly make yourself more independent by surrending Board autonomy to the demands of non-owner external reviewers and employees, do you? Once you get beyond fine theories and concepts, isn't autonomy often in the eye of the beholder?
I see Church structure in a rather different light from the issues at La Sierra. Local church boards usually are dominated by those who are particularly generous to both the local church and the larger denomination with time and talent. They do not want a high degree of independence in vision or mission, though I realize this is changing, particularly in larger churches.
The only way I see to meaningfully alter Church infrastructure is by changing the composition of constitutencies. Doesn't this mean that progressives, who would prefer a more congregational model, must start investing time and resources in their local churches if they are to effect structural changes? Do you see any other way?
When the larger numbers of board members are either church employees, or owe their board position to those who are denominationally employed, the board has, in effect, surrendered its autonomy.
Even in privately-held corporations, a board member are not usually employees, but members are made up of community civic leaders, business owners, or those who have a vested interest in the continuing prosperity of the corporation. In the apparent case of the PUC and LSU, who had the most power: the SDA conference employees, or the schools officers? Why weren't there more members who were alumni or from the community at large who are eager to see LUS grow?
Perhaps the church needs to consider whether the same type of governance that may work well in other church organisations is necessarily the best type of governance for an educational institution. I suspect many church leaders and church members have never given the issue any thought. We tend to like to go with the 'one size fits all' approach.
Kevin, universities are quite different than a parish church. The church is a voluntary group of members who can be asked, but cannot be administered as students. A university must have students, and students must pay tuition to gain the benefits and that requires teachers. Churches can be self-supporting, but not a university with its rules and requirements demanded by both an accrediting organization and the supporting church institution. Comparing them is not practicable. Some of the problems with the recent turmoil at LSU may have been because the same method was being used for entire different entities.
Yes, I realise that universities are different, you realise that universities are different, but I was suggesting that many of our members and even administrators have probably not thought much about that fact. The way the board is structured is typical of the way we structure all our boards. Many administrators believe it works elsewhere, so why not in a university? It is, after all, in their eyes, simply another church institution like a publishing house or a conference or whatever. The history of our church organisation is a history of trying to avoid concentrating power in the hands of a few balanced against avoiding losing control. Losing control is the issue most dear to the hearts of some of our current administrators, so I can't see them contemplating any structure that does not leave the administration of the union in charge and stacks the board with church employed appointees. The idea that all church institutions are there primarily to fulfill the mission of the church, and therefore should be under the direct oversight of the church, is still widely held.
Of course, if you believe politics does not play a big part in the appointment of administrators and board members (and even faculty) at a public university, then perhaps you should look into the matter a little more cloesely. University politics are as messy, and at times as uncivilised, as anything you will see in the church.
The larger and longer an institution is in power, the more heavily it is influenced by politics. The only difference: the church is guided by God. Believe that and I've got lovely beach front property in Wyoming, cheap.
Nathan,
It my be so that the people in the pew are satisfied with clergy control, although I've never seen a study to document this theory. It is true that changing the board structure does not assure all will be well. Think Enron and numerous other "bones" lying about. And yes, the Union does "own" LSU and one can ask how another can tell an owner what to do. WASC and other organizations do have a clout: do what we ask or we'll pull our accrediation. There is also the issue of whehter leaders of an organization can implement significant actions on their own. What is the purpose of protocol, policies, by-laws if the "owner" can ignore at will?
One cannot ignore the effect denomination leader's decisons have on the church people. The internet has created a whole new environment. Actions and secrets travel round the world at the click of a button.
The educational system, I believe, is the only entity that has potential to bankrupt the Adventist church. The church took care of the health care liability by spinnng it off to independant coporations. The risks in the educational system continue. If one or two colleges went bust is the denomination accountable to pay off the debts? The effective demise of Atlantic Union College may provide a hint.
There are no easy answer and one can always second guess.
Physicians are not as easily controlled as denominational employees. Teachers, the church may discover, also have such an esoteric term as "academic freedom" that must be honored if the educational system is to survive. Already, there are indications that certain disciplines in science are not being filled in SDA schools. Why should they when these teachers are already in heavy demand outside the denomination?
Those in the religion department most likely are ordained so have a different standing with the SDA church and can be more easily controlled. Even so, are teachers under the G.C. or the particular educational university? Who has the last word on employment as well as class discussions and curricula?
These are not unimportant questions, but who has the answers?
Governance in the Adventist Church has, for the most part, become a cruel joke because it is more focused on self-preservation than achievement of mission. There is punishment for questioning the decisions of church leaders because the assumption is made that if someone is in a position of leadership then their decisions must be according to God's direction.
Further, there is no real accountability to the membership. There are two reasons for this. First, so long as there is any increase in membership, most members believe the church is accomplishing it's purpose. Second, in my conference, church employees are a voting block at the meeting separately and in addition to the delegates from churches. They typically are the largest single voting group at the meeting. That is a conflict of interest because they are supposed to be subject to the authority of the membership instead of dominating the vote and controlling decisions.
Seeing those problems, when my church was formed we consciously adopted a governance structure that has proven both quite different and highly effective. Instead of a nominating committe, we have a Connections Team that trains and guides people into ministry instead of picking people for positions. Further, there are no terms of service because God doesn't put expiration dates of giftedness. Instead of a church board, we have an Administrative Committee that handles church business matters. We also have a Spiritual Focus Team that is composed of elders and ministry leaders. Our part-time pastor is not the chairman, but an occasional observer. By the way, our conference leadership are our greatest fans because of how well our church operates and how focused we are on actual ministry.
This sounds like a good system. I am all for more creativity in structure and getting out of the rut that has caused so much distrust and sometimes disillusionment with the system. We need more flexibility.
I have always thought we need leaders who have expertise and education in management and business for the positions they are put in. Why pick an ordained pastor (usually a man) to be in a position that needs an experienced business manager who has proven himself or herself outside the church as well as in it? Trained pastors should be pastors, in most cases, and trained in counseling, management, and theology.
Good pastors do not necessarily make good CEOs (though some may with experience). I don't always see leaders being chosen for their gifts.
As you very well know, governance is all about the art of making good decisions.
In the Rocky Mountain conference before I left, we were conducting powerful experiments in governance at the local church level.
For years prior to starting the experiments I had waited for the system to become more missionally focused, but nothing happened. "A system is designed to get exactly what it is getting"
I watched and saw young professionals becoming increasingly disenchanted with the church, and the complex, political machine it has become.
When we instituted a governance process in which employees were held accountable to lead, to be missional, to be externally focused, to be held accountable for specific parameters that were measured to determine the health of the local church. Employees and non-employees (I really don't like the pastor/lay divide, its not Biblical and it kills mission) who understood the process, and spent the time reading, and were capable of reframing around a new paradigm became very excited. Participation in externally focused ministries went way up, internal ministries in the church grew, giving patterns changed has they all contributed heavily to what they believed in.
Alas, this appropriate North American experiment in missiological contextualization came to an abrupt end. I have started several articles, but threw them away when my cynicism and pain has crept in.
A GC VP who I highly respect, and who understands governance well, and travels around the world attempting to help various institutions understand the principles of appropriate governance, mentioned a very important clarification, that became the brick wall we slammed into at 90 mpg.
"Governance principles are appropriate for institutional boards. The local church governance process is based on an executive committee system, in which all boards are tied together with oversite and supervision being vested at the next higher committee. This is what is spelled out in the church manual."
So I was accused of not abiding by the church manual . . . and you can imagine yourself what happened next.
However I would simply ask, is the local church healthier today than it was five years ago. Are there specific parameters that are kept track of, that allow any and everyone to agree that the local church is accomplishing its mission. That disciples are more involved, more passionate about the areas of ministry that God is calling them. That Christian freedom and the gifts of the Spirit are showing up as the inappropriate control mechanisms are removed, replaced by appropriate governance accountability.
If not, then I do think it is time in the North American mission field, for appropriate contextualization to be allowed!
That is not as easy or profitable as it may sound to those who apparently do not understand the charter of a university. LSU has been defined as a university with the approval of the SDA church. In that designation, they must comply with WASC to continue to receive accreditation as a university.
If the church makes the decision that it no longer wishes to operate a university there are two choices: no longer comply with the requirements for a university and become a Bible college; or if the wish is to maintain university status it must allow the WASC to make recommendations that are necessary for that satus.
It is important to know that without university status the government student grants would drastically drop as students and parents would not pay for tuition at a non-accredited school, nor would students be able to enter graduate studies from a non-accredited school. Without government funding, there probably would not be sufficient funds to continue the schools operation. It is a Sophie's Choice. Which one should be made?
WASC is areligious: they take no position whatever on religion. Their charter is to qualify a school for university accreditation and there are very particular specifics for that. It's like asking a parent or student why he should care if a prospective school is accredited, or if your physician is accredited. Does it not make a difference? Most of us care less about our physician's religion, but a great deal about her qualifications. For those who don't understand the requirements, check out the WASC requirements for more info and become educated.