Ends Statements and Allocating Resources

Today we had a great meeting of the Governance Task Force (we meet nearly every week).  We began talking about continuing the rewriting of our Ends Statements.  Last week we wrote a Level One Ends Statement that should cover everything we do here at UUCA.  Carver says that EVERY Ends Statement must include Results (impact, difference, change, benefit, outcome), Recipients (the population to receive the Results) and Costs (monetary expense or relative priority).  Here's what the Board agreed was an acceptable Level One Ends Statement:

The people who participate in the life of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Asheville embody the values of Unitarian Universalism, effectively using all resources of the congregation.

When we write Level Two Ends Statements which will help further guide the Executive, we need those three components.  Which brought us smack up against the problem of allocating resources (that is the way the Board/Governance Document will set priorities for the Executive).  Because, as Carver predicted, we don't have enough information!

Almost immediately we moved from thinking of resources as money and recognizing that in a congregation, Resources = Money (assets and staff) + In-kind contributions of people who participate in the life of the congregation.  These contributions include donations of TIME plus donations of THINGS.  And then there loomed the first innocent question:  So how do we allocate our resources now?  Hmmmm....

So, our next steps will happen in tandem.  The Task Force members will individually come up with a set of Level Two Ends Statements while the staff works in the background to try to guesstimate the full extent of our resources (probably ignoring donations of THINGS for now).

It is a very interesting thing to think about.  Immediately, when you define Resources this broadly, you intuitively note that lifespan religious education takes up the largest segment of the congregation's resources.  Then, you might also notice that Resources, though not unlimited, are extremely expandable. For instance, prior to Rev. York's revival of the caring activities that can be done by lay members, there was a much smaller allocation of our Resources to that area.  Without stopping any other programming, we ADDED a very effective lay pastoral ministry.  How about that!

Stay tuned.....

Those Negative Policies

When we have presented the basics of policy-based governance to members of the congregation, many, many of you noted your discomfort with the use of negative statements when delineating the limitations for the Executive (in the Governance Document for those of you who have lost track).  In the book, Reinventing Your Board, the Carvers say this:

Even when board members understand the theoretical reasons, it is common in implementation for boards to question the principle that staff means [what the staff does] be controlled by the board through the use of negatively worded or proscriptive policies.  A frequently voiced concern is that the language (The CEO shall not cause or allow...") is awkward and is unacceptably negative in tone.  [Hey, have they been attending our meetings?]  While we are sympathetic to the complaint of awkwardness, we urge boards to notice that while proscriptive policies are verbally negative, they are psychologically very positive to the recipient.  The message received is, "So long as you do not do these few proscribed things, anything else will have our support."  This is the same as the board's preapproving any action of the CEO that is not in violation of the board's stated criteria about unacceptable means.

The Carvers further advise:  "Constraining language allows greater empowerment.  Get used to the awkwardness; it's worth it."