Upon beginning its work in the Summer of 2010, members of the FUS Governance Task Force received questions and comments at forums, leadership retreats, meetings, 1:1 conversations, and in response to monthly e-mail updates. Below we have aggregated and organized all questions and responses from the period August 2010-June 2011.

We certainly expect more questions we move into the full implementation of our transition to the new governance structure, and the newly formed Governance Committee will begin a new FAQ page to reflect those conversations. We feel that the following questions and answers are an effective way to communicate our thinking during the critical phase of developing the policies and structures for this new way of organizing the work that we – the staff, lay leaders, and members – do together.

There are many ways to organize the questions and our responses. Recognizing that there will always be overlap, we used the following categories:

Board
Board Committees
Definitions
Governance Change Process
Lay-Staff Roles and Relationships
Organizational Structure
Policies
Power and Authority
Vision and Mission

Board

What is the Board’s relationship to the Congregation?

The Board is elected by the members of the congregation. Once elected, the Board’s role is to discern the mission and priorities of FUS and insure that we are effectively working to fulfill our mission through oversight and policies that guide the staff’s work.

How can the Board effectively provide oversight if it is insulated from daily activities?

One of the major goals of this process is to set up a system of systematic reports that will presented to the Board on how well the goals of FUS are being obtained by the staff and member volunteers. This will require the Board to be thoughtful in defining how we will measure success, which should help provide increased clarity and direction to the staff and volunteer members.

The breadth of the covenant item on speaking with one voice needs to be better specified.

The major intent of specifying that the Board speaks with one voice is to remind individual Board members that as individuals they have no authority to direct staff or expend resources on behalf of FUS. Only the Board as a whole has that authority.

Discipline processes need expansion/clarification. Any disciplinary measure short of removal from the board? What proportion in favor is required to expel a Board member?

Our policy on the Discipline and Removal of Board members specifies that the Board may suspend voting privileges prior to seeking removal of a Board members. The bylaws specify that a simple majority vote is all that is necessary to remove a Board member based on violations of the Board covenant or other policies.

Does the sentence “The president shall lead the governance of the church and has the authority to . . . “ mean that the board president can take actions without board approval?

The President of the Board does not have the power to pass policies without a vote of the full board. However, the President retains some powers, including the ability to appoint various committee chairs.

The revised bylaws remove the power to set the Board’s meeting agenda from the President, which seems like it has the potential to create a problem even if there is a new policy on setting the Board’s agenda. In a dispute, it should be clear who has the final say.

We agree that in a dispute situation, it should be clear who has the final say. After consulting with Dan Hotchkiss (our consultant), we believe that the ultimate authority to decide on the meeting agenda should rest with “The Board” overall rather than the President. This insures that a radical President can’t control the actions of the Board through the power of controlling the agenda. Language that clarifies this has been added to the revised bylaws we are proposing.

The governance changes will make the Board a very important body; more serious attention needs to be paid to how it is chosen. There has been a call for nominations, but the process is unclear. If someones name is submitted, will that person receive a nomination? Are all of the nominees submitted for the vote of the parish, or only those selected by the Nominating Committee? Are there written policies and procedures about this? Is there a description of the nominees (biographies, pictures, and vision statements)?

Our work on governance has called attention to weaknesses that were already present, and Nominations is one of those areas that need greater clarification. We have instituted changes that make this year’s process more “transparent” than that of previous years. But more can be done. The questions raised provide a good framework as we discuss, develop, and formalize the nominations process.

With the proposed Board terms, how will we preserve enough institutional memory? Could we stagger terms to assure that there will always be overlap between the terms of new and experienced Board members?

The Board is composed of seven people serving three year terms. The terms are staggered such that no more than 3 (and usually 2) Trustees are up for election in any given year.

There are currently no term limits for the Board, and also none in the proposed by-law changes. Term limits would help to rejuvenate the Board, with new members bringing new skills and introducing fresh ideas.

New language was added to the bylaws that will limit trustees to two terms on the Board, after which they must come off the Board for a minimum of three years. We clarified that there will be “between 2-3” officers to reflect the fact that during some years we won’t have a President-Elect.

Board Committees

The recommendation is to amend the by-laws to do away with the Treasurer as an elected position. How will the role of the treasurer be fulfilled with the new structure of Finance committee and chair?

The current bylaws assign to the treasurer a level of operational involvement that hasn’t been functional at FUS for the last decade or more (signing checks, for example). Although the treasurer no longer does these more routine functions, the treasurer has continued to have an operational focus. The new structure requires that the COO have such skills as accounting and budget analysis. The Finance Committee will assist the Board in its oversight responsibilities

How are members of the Board Committees chosen?

See the charters for the Committees at the end of the Policy Manual document.

Governance Change Process

How were GTF members selected?

Members of the GTF were selected by the Board using a process recommended by our consultant, Dan Hotchkiss. The Board’s primary criteria were experience working with the leadership of FUS, open mindedness, and ability to work in a collaborative way with all of the people involved in this governance review.

What problems are we trying solve with the governance change? What is the goal?

The rationale for the governance initiative is outlined in the Board’s July 14, 2010 Resolution http ://fusmadison .org /media /fus -board -resolution -on -governance .pdf>. This resolution states in part that : “The Board of the First Unitarian Society of Madison believes that there is a need to fully review our governance structures and move to a more policy-based approach. We believe this for the following reasons:

The First Unitarian Society of Madison has increased in size and complexity over the years, and unclear lines of responsibility and accountability have sometimes led to confusion and contention.
The current policy manual is inadequate and out of date;
The Board finds itself focused too often on administrative and “situational” decisions instead of focusing on providing long-term direction and vision for FUS;
Other organizations within our denomination, including the UUA, several districts, and various congregations have successfully made the transition to this form of governance.”

Institutions often make what they say are transformational changes that turn out to be just new names for the same practices. Is this a permanent change? How will we know that it is real change, and not just a fad?

One characteristic of the Hotchkiss model is the concept of a transition period. The planning phase of the transition to policy based governance will end with creating the system; then we try it out and look at performance. Real organizational change takes time and long-term commitment. It may seem a bit unstructured at first, but we want to retain enough flexibility that we can refine it as we continue through the transition. One of the first steps is for the Board to learn their new role: No longer the ultimate arbiter or “Supreme Court”, but responsible for generating real vision base on dialogue.

I believe the restructuring process is not sufficiently transparent.

We have worked to provide as much transparency as possible and welcome suggestions of new avenues of communication. To date there have been email updates to all FUS members, between-service opportunities to meet with GTF members, GTF Forums, leadership retreats, and a section on the FUS website dedicate to governance. Members of the GTF are available to meet with committees, councils, and other groups, and have responded to several requests to come to such meetings.

Near the beginning of the revised Policy Manual, the trial period is defined as for one year. The other publications call this new governance model a two-year trial. As you know, it would be way to difficult to know if this new system will work after only one year.

Thanks to a careful reader for catching this. We have indeed opted to have a two-year transition period rather than the one-year trial run as described in Dan Hotchkiss’ book. We have modified the definition of “trial run” with the following change:

Trial Run/Transition Period: The Board intends to develop enough substance to move in this new governance direction, but realizes there are still many details to be worked out. Thus, we are proposing that FUS move to this structure for a period of two years by temporarily approving the bylaws changes needed to enact the proposed policies. During this time we will learn by doing, adjusting structures and policies as needed. At the end of the two year transition period, the Board expects that it will have developed a more complete body of policies to guide our future. At that time, we plan to take an additional vote on both the current proposed changes and any new proposed changes to the By-laws that will be needed to finalize the conversion to this new governance approach.

How can the members that typically attend services on Saturday be included in the discussion process, without asking them to return to FUS on Sunday?

The GTF will be holding a listening session after a Saturday service to engage in discussion of governance and answer question of Saturday service-goers. It should be noted that our 9 AM Sunday service attendees are also not directly served given the limitations of our size and people’s availability.

What has happened to feedback that has been provided?

The GTF members receive all feedback and have taken it into consideration as policies have been formulated.

How will by-laws be changed?

The GTF is examining the by-laws in conjunction with the policies affirmed by the Board to determine where by-law changes will be needed. Ultimately, the GTF and Board will bring a proposal to the congregation by late April for discussion and ultimately a vote at the June 2011 Parish meeting.

At its meeting on June 5, the Parish will be asked to give a vote of confidence for the Board policies, and to approve by-laws changes. Is there a way to involve people who can’t make it to the Parish Meeting? Some churches have absentee ballots and online voting opportunities.

There was substantial discussion of absentee balloting at last spring’s Parish Meeting. The primary argument against it is that it is the nature of our meetings that there are frequently amendments made that change the original motion. Something to consider for the future could be to explore the capacity for involvement in Parish meetings via streamed video feed.

Lay-Staff Roles and Relationships

Will we still need/use volunteers?

We’ll most definitely still need volunteers. Although the Council and Committee structure will be gone in the new structure, the talents and energies of such groups will continue to be present in the form of ministry teams comprised of talented volunteers who help execute the vision of ministry.

“Long term volunteers" have been encouraged to "rethink" their roles. What does that mean?

The goal is for the new process to be much more satisfying to volunteers by offering opportunities to do what you are interested in rather than be involved in meetings. As we move forward, we believe there are strong incentives for the staff to improve the way opportunities are communicated which will also improve volunteer satisfaction and our ability to accomplish our goals.

In the past, there have been instances in which long-term volunteers have inadvertently created silos that had the effect of discouraging volunteer involvement. It will take a degree of trust, as well as time, to correct old habits and build new structures.

Will volunteer teams/committees work at the direction of the paid staff?

Volunteer teams/committees will be redefined as ministry teams under the leadership of appropriate Staff members in order to insure alignment with the vision of ministry. A secondary goal is to structure this relationship in such a way that it’s fair to the Staff member who is ultimately held responsible for the accomplishment of the mission.

Will volunteers lose motivation to participate if they aren’t in charge of committees and or projects?

Some members have expressed concerns that the role of volunteers will change once we move to this new structure, and that a byproduct of the new structure will be that the paid Staff will do everything. Even if we were able to pay Staff to do everything that we need to do, that is not a path any of us would take. We realize that our members want FUS to provide them with opportunities to live their values and make an impact. In order to be successful, our programs will require the continued strong and committed involvement of volunteers. Our hope is that the new structure will provide more volunteer opportunities, provide Staff with the resources and the motivation to communicate opportunities even more clearly, and that ultimately the experience of volunteering will be more satisfying.

What will we do if we can’t find volunteers to staff our ministry teams? Won’t there be jobs that it’s hard to recruit for?

There have always been roles that are more challenging to recruit for than others. Our hope is that by making the individual staff person responsible for the ultimate achievement of our programmatic goals, they will be more aware of gaps in our volunteer needs and work with our members to fill those gaps by finding the right people and/or restructuring the roles.

How will staff communicate the various initiatives and projects that are seeking volunteers? How will staff select volunteers? What in this process would ensure the ability for equal participation by all who wish to volunteer? What steps will be taken to assure that staff will make ministry teams welcoming to all?

We’ve tried to make it very clear that one of the goals of the new governance process is to make it easier for volunteers to get involved in targeted ways that allow them to “do things” without having to be involved in oversight committee meetings like the Council structure imposed. It has also been a major goal to redirect the energy of our current board by both shrinking it (freeing up valuable volunteer energy for other projects) and having the Board be focused on vision and oversight rather than operations.

It is our expectation that FUS staff members will have a strong incentive to publicize volunteer needs and to accept as many volunteers as they can find for tasks. One of the key aspects of this new governance structure is to place responsibility for the achievement of our programs and goals directly onto the staff. Our hope is that by doing this, we will avoid any confusion as to who is responsible for getting things done. At the same time, we recognize that the staff will be held responsible for accomplishing far more than they can do themselves, which creates the need for them to actively recruit and nurture their ministry teams.

We also recognize that communicating volunteer needs has not been a strength across all areas, although in some cases we have found solutions using the web, email, announcements and personal outreach. As we move toward full implementation we expect to see staff working together to share best practices so that FUS will uniformly become more consistent in communicating volunteer opportunities and needs. It is only by getting better at this can we accomplish more and provide more satisfying opportunities for our members.

What will be the relationship of Staff to Councils? Will the council structure change?

The council structure will be replaced by Ministry Teams of volunteers that will operate under the leadership of a staff person. Thus, the head of a particular Ministry Team will not report to a Council or to the Board, but instead be a partner working with the FUS staff member to insure our programs are working. The major goals of moving to this structure are to:

Reinforce the idea that staff members are ultimately responsible for the successful execution of our programs despite the fact that we will need lots of help from members to make that happen.

Give staff members the opportunity to structure volunteer teams (and change that structure to fit the challenges they may have at any given moment without needing approval from the Board or anyone else.

To provide staff with the freedom to create more satisfying volunteer opportunities that allow our members to focus more on what they would like to do.

How will policy governance change the role of the people who were formerly Council Chairs? Will there be term limits for chairs of Ministry Teams?

The process of putting together ministry teams will start once we begin the transition. Staff will be responsible for forming teams to support worship and other needs. Ultimately some components of the ministry teams may look like the current structure, but with the flexibility to closely observe what’s working, what isn’t, and make changes based on what we learn as we implement the new ministry team structure. Many of the ministry teams will be time limited, based on their specific objectives. We will look at succession management for those ministry teams that serve “in perpetuity.”

How will the ministry teams operate? How will they allow and encourage the inclusion of member energy, creativity, and vision?

Each ministry team will probably operate a bit differently, but the general hope is that by clarifying our goals and empowering our staff to create the teams of volunteers that they need to fulfill the mission we will do a significantly better job of harnessing our members’ energy, creativity and vision. We also believe that the Board’s more open and transparent process to discern our mission and define our priorities will offer more opportunities to take advantage of our members’ insights and creativity.

Where does Lay Ministry fit into the new Governance Structure?

This question was asked and answered at the Forum, but was mistakenly left out of the Forum Report in the last update. Lay Ministry will remain right where it is, with Staff responsibility assigned to the Associate Minister. It will continue to function as an extension of the Professional Ministry, providing rites of passage for non-members, assisting at memorials for members, providing hospital contacts and visitation, coordinating Share the Care and meals as needed, facilitating such outreach groups as the Job Support group, and grief group, assisting with joys and sorrows, and providing welcome for newcomers and those with pastoral concerns as well as referrals to the professional ministers as needed or requested. There may also be expanding opportunities in the future when the neighborhood groups are formed.

We should have an “HR officer,” at a level of partnership with the COO, to coordinate and provide resources for volunteers.

It will be the responsibility of all Staff members to identify our needs and lead our volunteer teams. Our hope is to provide a consistent interface for members to identify volunteer opportunities and to provide the support and training necessary for the Staff to do this successfully.

What is the status of the proposed position of Volunteer Coordinator? Who will engage with members to determine their interests and talents?

Current plans are to restructure staff position to have someone with the designated responsibility of identifying skills and interests of volunteers and matching them with opportunities for involvement. Staff will be encouraged to identify “volunteer volunteer coordinators” who would be willing, as their volunteer responsibility, to actively recruit volunteers for tasks and programs.

Staff aren’t necessarily “managers.” What training will staff receive that will help them train and guide volunteers? How can already over-burdened staff take on a management role? Where specific skills are needed for a task or project, how will staff measure the skills of the volunteers to do the needed tasks?

We realize many of our staff members will need incremental training in volunteer coordination and management, and the Board is committed to providing that opportunity to them, and will accomplish this through a systematic plan for leadership training which will be offered to both staff and volunteers. We also believe that many staff members may want to recruit a volunteer to help them coordinate other volunteers. One of the goals of the new governance model is to accomplish more with the same number of staff members by better utilizing our volunteers, which in turn deepens the connections to FUS. In the end, we anticipate that freeing staff from some of the committee work and routine tasks will enable them to use their time and talents more productively.

What if staff have to say “no” to a volunteer initiative?

This will undoubtedly happen. We believe that this structure will eliminate the situation where an idea languishes for years based on the lack of a clear “yes” or “no”. There will be ideas that can’t be aligned with the vision set by the Board, or that simply cost too much in terms of money and other resources to be feasible at the present time. The Board’s annual Open Questions process will provide volunteers with opportunities to shape the vision, and thus introduce new ideas and directions.

Organizational Structure

Are we moving toward running FUS like a corporation? The kinds of titles we’re using (COO) suggest this.

The point of using a title like COO is to clearly convey the responsibilities that position will have – namely, that they will be in charge of overseeing the operating activities of FUS on behalf of the Senior Minister (who is ultimately responsible for the performance of the staff). We did not feel that “Administrator” conveyed the breadth of responsibility that this position would have. The only resemblance we might have to a corporation is that our structure will be more defined, which has significant positive benefits such as “who does what”. This clarity of structure should make us more efficient and responsive.

Shouldn’t the reporting lines below COO also be specified (i.e., specify that the Minister of Religious Education supervises the Director of Religious Education)?

The reporting lines below the COO will be defined more precisely once the new COO is in place. What we do know is that the COO will only have a limited number of “direct reports,” and that most staff members will likely report to someone other than the COO directly.

Shouldn’t the COO be elected rather than hired/appointed?

The COO position was created in recognition of the fact that while the Senior Minister has ultimate responsibility for the operations of Staff, the role of Senior Minister is so big that it will not allow for the kind of time and focus needed to manage the day-to-day operations. Thus, the COO is really an extension of the Senior Minister (think Cabinet Secretary to the President). Given that the ultimate success of this working structure depends on their being a very high level of trust and partnership between the Senior Minister and COO, it made the most sense to have the COO be appointed by the Senior Minister?

What protects the staff from a “badly behaving” COO?

All paid staff will be protected by our existing personnel policies that will define their expectations, as well as by the legal system. We also plan a thorough review of our current HR manual during the 2011-12 church year. Any significant disagreements with the COO should ultimately be taken to the Senior Minister, but the expectation would be that the close working relationship between the Senior Minister and the COO would result in a COO that oversees the staff consistent with the wishes of the Senior Minister.

What happens when there is a change in Senior Minister – is the expectation that the COO will typically leave at that time as well?

A new Senior Minister will have the opportunity to appoint a COO that they want to work with and that will allow FUS to operate as successfully as possible. There is nothing in the policies, however, that eliminates the possibility that a new Senior Minister might re-appoint the existing COO to the position.

Where can a staff member or member of the congregation go if s/he has a problem or issue with the COO or Senior Minister?

The Senior Minister is the ultimate authority in terms of leading the paid staff, but must operate within the limitations of all policies, HR processes, and the law. Also, Board Policy 2d (Care for Paid Staff) provides for grievance to the Board when a staffer alleges that the law or a Board policy has been violated to their detriment and all other internal grievance procedures have been exhausted.

Has there been any consideration of the possibility of adding another minister (rather than a COO), given the load on our current and past ministers. Or is it the thinking that f we break out “administration-like” tasks, the ministers will have more time to carry out their ministerial responsibilities?

That prospect has not been a consideration in our governance discussions.

Because our ministers take sabbaticals (well deserved), I am wondering about the flow of 'governance' then. For example, if the Senior Minister is gone on a 3-4 month sabbatical, is the Chief Operating Officer (COO) solely in charge? If one of the other ministers is gone for 3-4 months, who manages his/her 'ministerial team' during that time?

The COO acts as the "administrative arm" of the Senior Minister and should be assumed to always be acting in accordance with the wishes of the Senior Minister. The goal of having the COO is to allow the Senior Minister to focus primarily on his/her teaching, preaching and pastoral care duties rather than on being the Chief of Staff. This relationship would continue at times when the Senior Minister is on sabbatical, although the frequency of communication between the COO and Senior Minister might change during sabbaticals.

Other ministers have duties that fall into two categories - those related to overseeing activities related to fulfilling our programs and the "Vision of Ministry", and those related to their own preaching, teaching and pastoral care duties. A primary role of the COO is to insure our programs and the Vision of Ministry is fulfilled by providing management and oversight to everyone working towards these goals - this would be true both when the Senior Minister was on site and during sabbaticals. The COO will not be overseeing the other ministers in areas related to their preaching, teaching and pastoral care duties.

Is it realistic or fair to ask the COO to do performance appraisals of a minister?

This was an important consideration that the GTF discussed at great length. Note that the policies only specify that the COO will evaluate a minister to the extent that they are responsible for the execution of certain programs and other institutional goals. The COO will NOT be evaluating the minister on anything related to their pastoral, teaching, and preaching responsibilities.

I’m concerned that the current number of staff members will not have sufficient time to fulfill their new responsibilities.

Some staff members spend as much as 15% of their time in committee meetings. The proposed changes would allow staff greater discretion over how to best use their time to support programs and the work of the ministry teams.

Policies

Where are policies on conflict of interest?

The new policies spell out conflicts of interest that could arise for Board members, and specifies a process by which they can deal with those conflicts.

What are the specific processes about how to deal with instances of sexual harassment, discrimination, etc.

Currently, we have a Safe Congregation Policy that covers such issues. This policy might be modified or expanded at some time in the future, but that type of review is beyond the scope of the governance review process.

(1)We need a personnel policy that staff can only be fired for cause and that before someone is terminated, concerns about performance must be clearly articulated and an opportunity for improvement provided. (2)There should be a time limit for the resolution of grievances. (3)We need to coordinate any policies re care for members with our current RE policies and safe congregation policy.

Once the major governance process work is complete, the Senior Minister and COO expect to review and revise our Human Resources Manual, which is where these issues would be addressed.

(1)Why are gender identity and expression not included in the non-discrimination section of care for members and guests? (2) We should include a “no firearms policy” in the care for members section.

These were unintended oversights. The GTF will make a recommendation to the Board to modify the policies to incorporate these suggestions.

Are physical threats to members addressed?

Our policy on “Care for Members and Guests” establishes a prohibition on carrying firearms, and makes it the responsibility of the COO to insure the safety of our members through maintenance of the grounds and a clear emergency response policy.

I am interested in how performance appraisals are being and will be done. Are performance appraisals being done on a routine basis - at least every year a very formal appraisal and at the 6 month interval a more informal but still written appraisal? I have never heard of any feedback being asked of members about paid staff. Is this being done? I believe that the new plan will only work if appraisals are thorough and include feedback from both paid staff and members. This should be done at ALL levels of paid staff.

The policy on "Care for Staff" requires that the COO ensure that a performance review of all employees is conducted annually. More frequent reviews could be done if the Senior Minister, COO and/or immediate supervisor of a particular staff person believe it would be useful. The policy does not specifically outline the format of these reviews or the people that would have input into that process - that decision is left to the Senior Minister, COO and/or immediate supervisor.

Power and Authority

Has it been communicated to the membership how power will shift – among parish, Staff, clergy?

It is important to note that the Board continues to retain all of the power and authority it has traditionally had. The major changes that are being proposed have the Board more formally delegate and define the authority that the Staff has, and the limitations of that authority. The goal is not to “shift power,” but to provide the Staff with a well defined set of expectations as to what their role is, what they are able to do without seeing Board approval, and how they will be evaluated. We believe that by delegating more responsibility and authority to the Staff, the Board will be able to focus more on defining the mission and oversight, and the Staff will be able to be more nimble and responsive to volunteers and other members as they work to carry out the mission.

Seems like the focus is on dividing up power, rather than on creating ways for members to be involved and provide input.

It is our belief that by pushing authority and responsibility deeper into the organization, it will empower our Staff and volunteers to work together to creatively fulfills our mission without worrying if they need “Council approval” or “permission from the Board.” A major task for Staff under this structure is to nurture lay leadership. Guided by the Board’s mission and vision, and under the leadership of the Senior Minister and COO, this process will delegate to program Staff the responsibility for engaging the ideas and energies of members, as well as the authority to commit time and resources to implement these ideas.

Will consolidation of power lead to diminution of volunteer initiatives and responsibility?

We consider the delegation of responsibilities to staff to be a decentralization of power and authority in relation to programmatic operations. If you as a volunteer want to introduce a new idea, there will be a process for you to propose the idea. The Vision of Ministry sets the criteria for new initiatives, which must also fit within the parameters of the existing budget. Staff will have clear parameters to guide their decisions based on resources available and whether an initiative fits with the vision established by the Board. Once the staff have made that determination, they will work with you to find the best “fit” within the organizational structure where you can get the support needed to carry out the initiative. Decisions that formally consumed time at committee, council, and Board meetings can now be considered in a timely way.

Are we concentrating power? That is, are we making it more concentrated than it is already, or more concentrated than it should be?

The Board, which is elected by our members, remains the center of authority and power, as it always has been. What we are doing with this governance review is having the Board delegate the responsibility for operational issues more clearly to the Staff. This lack of clear delegation in our current model has been a constant source of problems and inefficiencies that have hurt our nimbleness and ability to respond to issues. We are very hopeful that by distributing responsibility and authority more clearly and deeper into the organization we will improve this situation.

Will the changes result in a shift in power away from the Parish?

The members of the Parish remain the ultimate source of powers as they always have been. It is the members that nominate and ultimately elect the Board, and the members that call the ministers. It is also the case that only a member vote can give final approval to operating budges and capital spending plans.

Are there sufficient checks and balances in this structure?

We believe the system has significant and improved checks against misuse of power and authority:

The Board continues to be elected by the members of the Parish.

The Board members’ responsibilities are more clearly defined, and failure to meet these expectations could be cause for removal.

The Board’s role in providing oversight to operations is more clearly defined, and a systematic review of all programs is now required by policy.

There are significantly more defined expectations of Staff in caring for the resources of FUS.

Members having issues with FUS staff will have a clear place to take these issues (the COO and/or Senior Minister), eliminating the confusion that may have existed before.

I’m concerned that we will become “top-heavy” and out of touch with our membership. We believe that the current structure is too top heavy, and that the new structure will push decision-making authority further away from the Board and even the Senior Staff. Our goal is to unleash the full potential of FUS by organizing our power and facilitating engagement to enhance the lives of our members and the broader community. One of the primary ways we hope to do that is by empowering the appropriate Staff person in charge of a program area to say “yes” to member initiatives and other ideas that members bring to them that help fulfill our mission.

As written, it sounds like Senior Minister, COO, and Board President‘s responsibilities overlap in problematic ways. I’m concerned that they will end up “stepping on each other’s toes.”

It is not clear which policy gives that impression, and it is certainly not the goal of these policies to create overlapping responsibilities. In fact, one of the primary goals of this governance review is to avoid those kinds of situations.

The Policy Manual gives the Senior Minister the responsibility for hiring and evaluation of the Chief Operating Officer. Given the level of authority vested in the COO, and the anticipation of a very close working relationship between the Senior Minister and COO, there should be a more open process to assure that there will be people in addition to the Senior Minister involved in hiring and evaluating the COO.

The following language has been added to Policy 2a, in the section titled “Delegation to the Chief Operating Officer”:

“It is required that during the hiring process the Senior Minister use a search committee consisting of at least one other staff person, one Board member, and one member who is an active participant on one of our ministry teams”

The following language has been added in Policy 2g, under the heading “Evaluation of the Chief Operating Officer.”

“The evaluation of the COO must include input gathered from the paid staff as well as volunteers that have been working closely with the COO to provide a more comprehensive picture of the COO’s overall effectiveness.”

What if the Senior Minister and COO decide to eliminate one program to free up resources for something else? Is there an appeal process?

The Senior Minister, as the Chief of Staff, will have the ability to decide how best to allocate resources to most effectively achieve the mission of FUS as defined by the Board (with input from the Ministers, the Staff, and the members). It would be typical for the Senior Minister and COO to seek significant input from others before making a decision to reallocate resources and eliminate a program, but the ultimate decision would be theirs to make.

Will there still be an Executive Team? If so, what will its role be?

The policies clearly establish the Senior Minister as the person ultimately responsible for the performance of the staff, and creates a close partnership with the COO to handle the day-to-day oversight and administration of FUS. However, nothing precludes the Senior Minister and/o COO from creating other sub-teams to provide input, guidance, etc.

The definition of the position of COO seems too loose in comparison with the responsibilities identified for Ministers, staff, Board and volunteers.

The Senior Minister has developed an initial draft of the position description for the COO that provides more detail. The final position description will contain a level of detail similar to those of other FUS staff.

Several questions relate to the reporting relationships and supervisory structure relative to the COO:

As presented, the COO position seems very powerful, with little accountability. Why should a position of this type not report to the Board?

The structure described, and the term COO, seems too orderly and hierarchical given the messiness of churches and the need for cross-program decision-making. What happens to the current management approach that is more team-based? One may gain efficiency but at the expense of a more holistic and responsive process that can respond to arising events and issues.

Is it true that program staff will report both to the Associate minister and the COO?

One of the key considerations that came out of our work on governance was the need to avoid a situation where more than one person was ultimately responsible for making sure something was getting done. Thus, we approached the creation of a new structure with the idea of having one person clearly “in charge”, but didn’t want to preclude that same person working very collaboratively in the actual day to day execution of the tasks. We also were advised to avoid a situation where more than one person from the staff had a responsibility to be the Board’s connection to the staff. We hope this explanation helps you understand why we so clearly designated the Senior Minister to be head of staff. We want our staff to be collaborative in their work, but also to understand who is ultimately responsible for what at an individual level.

This same consideration came into play in the reporting relationship we are proposing for the COO – we wanted the reporting line to be one person to insure that this key role doesn’t report to “multiple supervisors”. Once again, we anticipate the COO to have strong connections to the other senior staff and hopefully operate in a very collaborative way – it’s simply that we didn’t want this collaborative approach to extend to reporting relationships.

Because it is neither desirable nor feasible for every staff member to report to the COO, the COO will delegate supervisory responsibilities to specific individuals. Thus the Music Director, RE Minister, Associate Minister, and other staff may be delegated the responsibility as supervisor. But again, the intent is that each person will have one specifically designated person will carry out supervisory duties.

Vision and Mission

Who establishes the vision and mission?

The Board is charged with the discernment and articulation of the mission and the annual vision for ministry. As with all its work, the Board does this in consultation with our senior minister. The Board is also charged to build an inclusive process to aid it in this discernment.

How do the vision and mission relate to other guiding documents, like the Bond of Union?

The annual “Vision of Ministry” is a statement of the Board’s highest priorities and new initiatives, and should be consistent with guiding documents like the Bond of Union and the UU Principles.