I’ve written before about things you might consider when leaving a volunteer board of directors for a non-profit or other community organization. I’ve also had some good conversations recently about the process on the other side of that kind of community involvement, deciding whether or not to say “yes” to joining a board of directors or taking on some other leadership role. For your sake and for that of the organization, it’s important to do some research and reflecting before accepting that invitation, to make sure your involvement is a good fit and that the experience will be rewarding for all involved.

From my experience, here’s a list of steps to take and questions to ask when you’re considering whether or not to join a board of directors:

1. What’s the function of the board? Is it purely advisory, or does it make and enforce policy? Is it involved in big-picture strategic planning, or is it managing day-to-day operations? What role does it play in the life of the organization?
2. What’s the time commitment? Some boards meet a few times a year in intensive sessions, but don’t otherwise expect much from their members. Other boards meet monthly, with multiple committee meetings and community events in between that you might be expected to attend or even organize. Some boards have very active e-mail mailing lists, others are quiet. Learn how much of your time and energy – in the form of meetings, events and other communications – you’ll be expected to expend.
3. What’s the leadership structure? Who sets the agenda for the board meetings? What’s the relationship between the board’s executive committee or other leadership and the rest of the members? What’s the relationship between the board and the staff? Are there “covert leaders” who have exceptional but unofficial or unnamed influence?
4. How are decisions made? Do board conversations seek to build consensus, or is discussion about convincing a majority to vote a certain way? When there are concerns or conflicts, how are they resolved? Are stakeholders consulted, or informed after the fact?
5. What’s your anticipated role? Are you being invited to join because you have a specific skill, affiliation or resource that you’ll be expected to use (e.g. you’re a lawyer and they need free legal advice)? Do they already know what committee or project they want you to work on, or will they wait to discern what might be the best fit for you?
6. What’s the new member orientation process? Are new board members formally oriented to the processes and culture of the board, or are they just expected to show up and figure it out? Who does the orienting, and what approach do they use?
7. How is institutional memory preserved? Does the board create and publish thorough meeting minutes? Are past decisions and discussions easily reviewable so that conversations aren’t re-hashed with board member turnover? Are key documents like bylaws, member contact lists, and financial statements made easily available?
8. What’s a meeting like? Ask to sit in on a board meeting as an observer and see how it’s conducted. Are the espoused values and mission of the organization manifested in the way the board members interact with each other? Is member participation even and equitable, or unbalanced and dominated? How does it feel to spend an hour of your time in that setting?
9. Why did other board members say yes, and why are they still there? Talk to other members of the board about their experiences, what they think works well, and what they see as areas for organizational growth. What frustrates them? What projects and successes get them excited?
10. Check your schedule. Even if the answers to all of the above questions point toward a “yes,” look at your existing time commitments and personal aspirations, and ask whether or not you can fully engage in the life of the organization without compromising those. Do you have enough time in the day for a new role?

Are there other things you take into consideration when deciding what good causes and organizations you give your own time to?

In a non-profit organization board meeting, it might be the Executive Committee or the board chair.

In a small business, it might be the business’s owners or managers.

In a city council meeting, it might be the President of the council or the group’s political majority.

In a community of faith, it might be church elders.

Sometimes we forget the power that the agenda setters can have.  We focus on the outcomes of the conversations that we do have, but we forget or overlook that some conversations aren’t conducted in the first place.

Sometimes this is out of practical necessity – a given group of people can only cover so much ground in a given gathering – but sometimes it’s because the agenda setters don’t feel a given conversation should be had.

In the best case, this choice to exclude certain conversations from the agenda happens because the agenda setters are using their collective wisdom and experience to make the best use of the organization’s time and resources.  Sometimes, though, it happens because the agenda setters are afraid of what might come out in the conversation.  A conflict they can’t mediate.  A decision they don’t agree with.  A bringing to light of things that they would be more comfortable keeping out of sight.

Different approaches to agenda setting work well for different kinds of organizations, but it’s always important to remember the power that the agenda setters are imparted.  As an organization evaluates its effectiveness, it might also ask these questions of its agenda setting process:

1. Is it clear who sets the agenda for the conversations we have as an organization?
2. Is it clear what process is followed for suggesting items for organizational conversations?
3. How well do we equitably handle differences of opinion in what the agenda contains?  How do we identify when something is being left out because of pragmatic considerations versus ideological disagreement?
4. Are those who set the agenda representative of the interests and needs of all who are affected by the organization’s decisions?
5. What important conversations does our agenda-setting process seem to systemically exclude from our time together in discussion?

Are there other queries that are useful to consider in creating a structure for agenda-setting?

In the organizations, businesses and relationships that you’re a part of, what kind of power does the agenda setter hold, and how well is that power used?

Having served on the CRC board in the past and having volunteered as a trained mediator, I came to greatly appreciate the idea that members of a community can resolve our interpersonal conflicts in ways that promote non-violence, justice, reconciliation and a deepening of connection, without resorting to the sometimes scarring machinations of the legal system. The CRC existed to facilitate those experiences, through its mediation program, educational work with local youth, and its rich history of related efforts in the Richmond area and beyond.

As a mediator, I had the honor of witnessing some magical moments between family members or co-workers where the conversation transitioned from accusation and battling to understanding, compassion and hope for moving forward. As a board member, I had the honor of working with a driven and passionate group of volunteers and staff who believed in what the CRC was about and what it could do for the community.

While the principles and practices of mediating conflict are certainly still available to anyone who wants to pursue them, it’s sad to see that a place like the CRC can’t sustain itself right now.  My hope, of course, is that this is an ending that will lead to other beginnings down the road.

Many people have given life and breath to CRC’s mission over the years, and I’m so thankful for their work.  I’m especially thankful for the careful and surely painful work that the current board members have taken on in reaching the conclusion to lay the CRC down.  I hope that Richmond can find some way to honor what CRC did and stood for in the ways that we carry forward.

On one hand, you’ve got the City painting a picture of being left out of the key parts of the relationship the EDC has with its Richmond constituents, having to fork over $730,000 without appropriate representation.

You’ve got a County official noting that the City is as well represented on the EDC board as the County or other entities, and that things are working just fine as they are, while the Chamber president notes that there may be a conversation to be had, but that the current actions being taken are too poorly timed.

What’s going on here?  Everyone seems to be making reasonable statements on the matter that represents the point of view of the entities they serve, but it sounds like they’re having the conversation with each other for the first time on the pages of the newspaper. ARGH!

If indeed the “conversation” was triggered by a City Council resolution refusing to designate its usual fund contribution to the EDC budget, then that seems like a really poor way to start things off. It sets up a battle full of pressure points and high-stakes leveraging, and needlessly sensationalizes the issue. Councilman Phil Quinn noted that they’re trying to “send a statement” – why do that with a public vote, when you could do it in a meeting, e-mail message or even postal mail? I suspect we’d be a lot farther along if there’d been in-person meetings between City, County, and Chamber officials trying to hash this out before going public with it, and while I don’t know firsthand that there wasn’t one, I suspect that they skipped that part.

By the same token, County and Chamber officials should not have responded in kind for a news story, using the media for power plays. When you say things like “it doesn’t make any sense to me,” or “this is extremely untimely” for the press, it’s a kind of public disapproval and shaming, even paternalistic finger-wagging, that can only serve to inflame whatever tensions might already exist. It also makes us look like we’re a community in chaos, which is exactly what economic development efforts don’t need. Instead, officials should have either refrained from commenting in any detail while noting that conversations are ongoing, or at least framed their concerns more positively – “We’re concerned about the timing and the reasoning here, but we’re ready to work with each other to understand everyone’s needs and broker a solution that works best for our citizens.” Would that have been so hard?

Yes, I’m basing all of this unsolicited advice on a single Pal-Item news story, and there may be other pieces of the puzzle not yet reported, but I think the theme here is not a new one for our community.

I’ve discussed the kinds of power struggles that are already built into the structure of our community building organizations, and when you throw in poor (or total lack of) communication on top of that, things are only going to get worse. I think it’s fine for community leaders to act shrewdly in the fulfillment of their vision for a better Richmond and Wayne County, but this cannot involve closing the door to dialog with other stakeholders – early and often.  Too frequently, we hear about one organization or government entity “scratching its head” at the actions of another, and then we throw up our hands and wonder why there’s little public confidence in our prospects for economic revitalization. Let’s connect some dots here, folks.

Mayor Sally Hutton is quoted as saying that “The bottom line is we want to work together…We will work something out.” Let’s hope that, for everyone involved, there’s not only an intention to work together but some actual mechanisms by which that might happen. These community leaders need to get in a room together TODAY, and they shouldn’t leave until they’ve got a joint media statement prepared that lays out a much more positive path forward. Richmond and Wayne County deserve at least that level of collaboration.

Update on 1/6/09: in an article today, the Pal-Item notes that the City Council has approved their contribution to the EDC’s budget, contingent upon a future appointment to the board.  This comes in the form of a 1-year agreement instead of the usual 4-year term.  According to the article, “No time frame was set for the first meeting between representatives of the city and county.”  This also comes on the same day as an announcement about the new EDC President.

One aspect of board culture that seems to be in total chaos everywhere is how a board member can leave a board of directors before their natural term is up in a positive and professional way. Based on my own experiences – sometimes as a board member who did a poor job of leaving early, sometimes as a board leader who was disappointed in how others parted ways – I’ve some unsolicited advice to offer:

1. Don’t Board Fade. Board Fading is the practice of slowly and quietly starting to disengage from the life of the organization. First you miss a few meetings, then you miss a few more without even sending your regrets, then you stop paying attention to the e-mail listserv, and then you just stop caring altogether. It’s a common and tempting practice in the world of ridiculous conflicting priorities, but it leaves a bad taste in everyone’s mouth, I think. If you find that you cannot serve out your duties as a board member, confront that head on and do something about it.
2. Don’t Resign by E-Mail or Voicemail. Ultimately, boards are still groups of people who have relationships with each other as they work to achieve some common goals. I think we owe each other the courtesy and care that comes with talking face-to-face about the things in our relationships that are difficult. To resign from a board with an e-mail or voicemail message is not only unprofessional, it does not provide any closure. You should take the time to meet with the board president or some other representative, and talk about why you’re leaving, what kind of relationship you’d like to have with the organization in the future, and what could have been done differently. If you still want to put your resignation in writing for everyone else, that’s fine.
3. Don’t let past board members become ghosts. If you’re in a leadership role on a board that someone is leaving early, or even if you’re not, the resignation discussion is not the end of the process. The person was originally on the board for a reason, and so it’s worth it to find out why their board experience didn’t match up with those original expectations. Your development efforts will also benefit from finding ways to maintain contact with the former board member, so that they can remain an informal spokesperson for the organization, and continue to offer their own support (volunteering, financial contributions, or otherwise). Just because they can’t come to board meetings any more doesn’t mean they can’t still participate.
4. Don’t speak ill of your former organizational colleagues. Or, at least don’t speak ill of them to others without first communicating your concerns directly to them first. Like all relationships, just because there’s a shift in its status, it doesn’t mean that you’re free to be reckless in your comments about it to others. You may find that you have other connections to those people that matter to you in the future, or that another organization you want to join will hear about how this parting of ways went and what was said. If you have concerns about how things were handled, work that out with the person(s) involved, don’t gossip about them.

That’s what I’ve got for now.  The theme here, of course, is to try to live out organizational relationships with the same intentionality, humanity and sensitivity that you would use in personal relationships.  I think we sometimes forget that organizations (even the largest corporate enterprises) are just groups of individual people, most of them trying to do the best they can.

If you have experience in the parting of ways with an organization’s board of directors or similar kinds of “endings,” feel free to share the practices and principles that you think should help shape those acts.

So, in keeping with my recent theme of unabashed plugs: if you have a conflict in your life that you want some help with, call the CRC. If you have a stressful situation with a co-worker in your office environment, call the CRC. If you’re considering or are already a part of some sort of legal action and want to find a better, perhaps more “humane” way to resolve that issue, call the CRC. If you know friends or colleagues or family members that could benefit from a neutral third party to listen and help move things forward, send them to the CRC. If you support the CRC’s mission and want to donate some funds, they’ll thank you warmly! And if you want to learn about how to be a part of the amazing things that CRC is doing (including being trained as a mediator), call the CRC OR come to their strategic planning session on February 18th.

But whatever their troubles, to imply that Don Holbrook is the sole reason for them seems unfair. To do so by bringing out questions about his education and employment history, and to identify specific spending choices he made (e.g. “the large, multi-sectional, desk that he bought for $8,000″) out of the context of the organization’s internal affairs, seems outright malicious. Whether it’s the EDC board members or some other political players or the Pal-Item’s own news editors that are driving this effort, I hope they’ll consider stepping back and reconsidering how they want to present this information to the public.

What Wayne County does *not* need right now is further erosion of public confidence in the overall hope for economic development in the area. If certain staff or board members need to go, or if budgets need to be tightened or re-thought, so be it – but the people who decide those things should be having those conversations together and reporting on the results, seeking public feedback through their own channels, not through the Pal-Item opinion page. To have those conversations on the pages of the newspaper is disrespectful to Don, to each other, and to the public who deserve better from officials working on taxpayer time.