The Hindsight of Others: Our Plan for Oversight
By: Jennifer Nackerud
Founder/Acting Director M.R.S.
As M.R.S. (Mothers Returning to School) reaches the next curve on this incredible road to formal incorporation as a nonprofit organization, we have many things to be thankful for: a solid mission and vision, over 100 supporters on the web, inspiring feedback from mothers across Colorado, and an appreciated partnership with Colorado Christian University. That said, there is a lot of work to do, and now more than ever, M.R.S. looks to you for your prayers, support, and encouragement.
One major objective in the upcoming months is the establishment of a governing board. As we begin the interviewing and selection process for board members, I ask that we not get caught up in simply "filling slots", but focus on a true understanding of what governance is to this organization, and how that will look as we begin relying on a board to implement policy, seek funding, and hire an executive director.
This focus will certainly require ample consideration of the current practices of other faith-based nonprofits. In the next few weeks, I will be providing a series of interviews from various nonprofits; may we be open to seeing ourselves in others' areas of improvement, and learning from their strengths.
The first interview to be included in this series was an easy and significant one for me. Easy because it was my father, significant because I have a genuine respect for his leadership capacities, and know he is nothing if not an honest, transparent communicator. My father, Dr. Shults, served as the pastor of Southside Baptist Church, in Hannibal, Missouri, for several years. To allow for an easier comparison of a church body to other nonprofit organizations, let me establish that in this particular congregation … the "deacons" function as the "board", the "pastor" functions as an "executive director", the "chairman of deacons" functions as the "board chair", and members of the church, as well as the larger community of Hannibal, serve as "owners" (for whom the mission of the church is carried out).
When asked to describe the organizational leadership capacities of the deacon body in relation to his own position, Dr. Shults described both his understanding of the traditional ways these roles are interpreted within Baptist congregations, as well as his own experience. He clarified that all authority is by culture, and not mandate. His opinion is that personalities often dictate whether the deacons or the pastor has more "control" over the daily functions and decisions of the church body. His personal experience, at Southside Baptist, was that the deacon body was deferential, viewing Dr. Shults as "the expert".
As he proceeded to describe this relationship in terms of functionality, the issue of "real" governance verses "visible" governance began to emerge, "What happens [with a differential deacon body] is that the bigger the decision, particularly with money, the more nervous they'd get. Rather than coming right out and disagreeing with something, they'd agree and then sabotage the idea". Dr. Shults gave the example of one deacon who would vote to accomplish a task, and then refuse to carry it out, or appoint anyone else to. Despite these frustrations, Shults did mention the chairman of deacons always considered it his duty to be supportive of the pastoral role, and was always supportive personally, and in the matter of voting. The chairman was an effective liaison, managing to be an ally to both Shults and the deacon body.
In addition to his discussion of relationship with the deacon body, the more formal points included the fact that deacon meetings were held to "Robert's Rules of Order", the established by-laws of the church body were not reviewed or updated during Dr. Shults' tenure, and deacons served on a yearly rotation (though because of possible re-election, there was very little movement).
Looking back, Shults would not have recommended any changes. The reason is simple: he believes any changes are incremental and must come from within the deacon body. He pointed out that a pastor's time at a church is always shorter than a deacon's, and many times the deacons' attitudes are, "I was here before the pastor was, and I will be here after he leaves".
As the founder of an infant organization, and student in a nonprofit management program that reminds me daily of my inadequacies, I certainly claim no ability to suggest the type of change that would be necessary for Southside Baptist Church to work in its ideal capacity; one where the deacon body and the pastor work together with total trust and a focus on the specific established mission of the congregation. What I do have the audacity to attempt, however, is to glean from the interview with my father and make a few suggestions for M.R.S. as we head towards establishing a board.
Suggestion #1: As we seek board members, we must begin the creation of a culture which focuses on the Truth. Did Southside forget its purpose, its mission? I don't believe so. I happened to have been privileged enough to work on staff at that church for a summer, as a youth minister. The deacons are kind people (and let me be clear that my father would say the same of them) who know whole-heartedly the purpose of their church, because it mirrors the purpose of their lives, as people of faith.
Perhaps it is precisely the opposite that is true: they cannot forget their purpose – it has been taught to many of them since childhood (some in the very same pew they sit in today!), inscribed in their Bibles, it's part of their signature when they send a birthday card ("God Bless you …"), and they pray their purpose be fulfilled each time they begin their meetings. And so it is that we find habits, rituals, formats, and traditions removing Truth from purpose. A supplement to this is a beautiful statement by Aideen McGinley, "Together, we need to lift our sights and create the image of a transformed society. We need to identify the perpetual horizon".
My fellow supporters of M.R.S.: may we never be so focused on ensuring that we are " … equipping mothers with practical tools for pursing education" that we forget the Truth that there are single mothers crying themselves to sleep this evening because they have no way of earning enough to pay next month's rent. May we never forget the Truth that the mothers who smile at us this Sunday morning at church might be dying inside, lost with no feeling of purpose or direction after having children. Lest we forget that education can Truly change lives, and the spirits of many are waiting on us to deliver this hope. Purpose must never become practical, it must always be passionate.
Action: In addition to keeping the mission statement present and visible in all of our recruitment activities (as well as board functions in the future), a great way to remember the Truth behind our mission is to provide a monthly newsletter to board members that includes success stories about mothers who have returned to school. What an awesome and inspiring way to start thinking about how we can impact our world!
Suggestion #2: Keep it real. I am sure there will be times I regret saying this, but if you don't like something I say, respect me enough to tell me. Obviously, normal discretion applies (if you don't like the luncheon menu I've chosen … who cares?), but if board members can't be authentic with each other, with me, and with an ED – how can we expect our message to the community to be authentic? Sooner or later, conflict reveals itself. I for one would rather find out that you think my idea is way off today than find out you thought my idea six months ago was way off and consequently, you're sabotaging current projects. Nancy Axelrod, author of Culture of Inquiry: Healthy Debate in the Boardroom, states,
A healthy culture of inquiry promotes thoughtful decision making, even when the decisions are tough ones. When dialogue, candor and dissent are all part of the group dynamics, board members master the skills of listening, dissecting the issues, and responding thoughtfully, truthfully, and in the best interests of the organization (http://www.boardsource.org/Spotlight.asp?ID=116.371).
Action: Assigning board members "mini" research projects about other organizations is a great way to get everyone involved with confronting conflict in a healthy (perhaps more comfortable) way. By allowing board members to start meetings with short presentations on the way in which other boards do their work, M.R.S. board members have non-accusatory opportunities to make suggestions and point out practices and concepts they disagree with, etc.
Suggestion #3: We will all be frantically sifting through our facebook friends lists, Yahoo! contact lists, cell phone numbers, and church directories in the upcoming months to look for connections that can bring us the best possible board-member options. The light-bulbs will be "ding-dinging" as we make the connections … "Ah! My best friend's brother's cousin's boss is a professor; he'd be perfect for this!" Here is my warning: do not believe yourself to be recruiting experts, but rather people with expertise. The Southside example teaches us that not only did the deacons hold resentment towards the pastor they had informally given decision-making "power" to, but it placed the pastor in a no-win scenario; he had a deacon body waiting on his decisions, only to undermine them. A healthier relationship would have included distinct job descriptions, and a perspective of partnership.
Action: We must create uniformity in our recruitment practices, to include information from the beginning on what the board will be asked to accomplish as a team, and in partnership with an executive director. A potential board member must never assume he or she is there to represent a particular viewpoint, but rather to use a particular viewpoint to represent mothers who are seeking continued education. In fact, Joyaux Associates (ww.simonejoyaux.com), includes this in suggested performance expectations, to be clearly communicated to candidates, "As appropriate, use personal and professional contacts and expertise for the benefit of [the organization]."
By following these suggestions and action plans, will M.R.S. create the utopia of board governance? No. However, as an organization we have been tremendously blessed with the opportunity to think critically and meaningfully about the approaches we are preparing to implement in a desire to, "… have a powerful, positive effect on communities and families, by strengthening the academic capacities of the mothers who shape them". So, ask me questions, encourage me to ask you questions, and get perspective from a variety of people; the mothers we serve will thank you. As always, I praise God for your input, your ideas, your intelligence, and your inner-strength; blessings to you and yours, and thank you for being on this journey with me.
