I know why they call it the board, Daddy,” said an insightful 8-year-old. “It’s because the meetings are so boring!” For people accustomed to an action-oriented society, a group that sits for hours to debate issues and takes months to make decisions does sound less than appealing. And it probably is if all it does is talk. We need to move from words to action.
Agendas that are effective
The traditional board agenda looks something like this:
- Call to Order
- Opening Prayer
- Reading of the Minutes
- Treasurer’s Report
- Pastor’s Report
- Correspondence
- Old Business
- New Business
- Adjournment
In my experience, this agenda often hinders effective discussion and decision making. Two principles of group meetings offer an explanation of that failure:
The Principle of Available Energy. A well-known proverb describes the universal principle of energy in meetings: “Deacons debate from seven to eight.”
When people come to a meeting, they want to dig into meaty issues. The energy level is high for about an hour before it begins to drop. Therefore, if the meeting begins at seven, minds won’t grasp subtle differences as well after eight. Second-hour decisions will receive less than the full attention of the group. By the third hour, only sheer dedication and persistence keep a board on its task.
Sawyer’s Law of Meetings: Matters brought up first receive the most time and attention, whether deserved or not. This second principle is related to the first but goes a step further. Because of the available energy, groups have a tendency to talk longest and with greatest vigor about the first issue presented at the meeting.
If the first item is whether to buy a five-dollar wastebasket for the church lounge, there will be ample debate of the merits of metal versus wicker baskets. Probing questions will be asked, such as where it will be placed, who will empty it, what kinds of waste will be allowed to be placed in it, and whatever happened to that nice basket Mrs. Jones bought for the church back in 1902.
Such discussion appears to be a waste of the creative energy of the highest governing body of our beloved congregation. Yet, without realizing it’s happening, groups often fall into the trap described by Sawyer’s Law.
After the available energy is drained away by discussing reports and minutes and letters from denominational executives (and wastebaskets, where some of the just-mentioned reports frequently are filed), the board gets to the agenda item in which a decision must be made about offering a Bible study for people who are mentally-handicapped. Is there any wonder that the ensuing discussion is fuzzy, lifeless, and prone to be postponed?
A flexible agenda answers the problem. I suggest throwing the standard agenda in the new wastebasket and resolving to utilize the operating principle dictated by our human frame. Whoever sets the agenda ought to be free to schedule the most important, most complex, or even the most controversial issues during the first hour of the meeting.
The big item on the agenda one month might be classified as “old business,” or it might be presented in the treasurer’s report. The first matter could be a bombshell from correspondence, or it might be a new and urgent proposal from the building and grounds committee for a new boiler, since the old one just broke and the temperature will drop to freezing by next weekend.
By the same principle, routine matters and reports that require no decisions can be scheduled for later in the meeting. By that point members will be glad to listen politely without having to say or do anything.
Controversial issues usually deserve an early hearing. Discretion, however, suggests that conflict can be lessened by the placement of such an item later on the agenda.
If, for example, the presiding officer decides an expected disagreement over the proposed colors for the rest rooms should be discouraged, the item could be placed late on the agenda. For the church and the kingdom of God, the long-term effect of beige rather than green will make little difference, and the issue will probably be fought over only feebly late in the evening.
“Manipulation!” you cry. You’re correct. This method is blatantly manipulative. It may be used for good or for less-than-honorable ends. A friend mentioned that in his business, managers intentionally stack meeting agendas by placing issues of minor importance at the beginning and pet proposals at the end, when most participants won’t care how the vote comes out. I wouldn’t recommend such covert use of this method.
The method may be used openly, however, if it’s explained to the board as presented here. The board thus holds a check-and-balance option when it adopts the agenda at the beginning of the meeting. Any board member can, and should, override the agenda maker by moving to place an item at a different spot on the agenda. That way the entire body ultimately decides the agenda.
This flexible agenda method has worked well in a number of settings. Credit for the concept is given to D. Lorrin Kreider of Columbus, Ohio, an outstanding pastor and administrator, from whom I learned it ten years ago.
To act, to know, or to advise?
Only three purposes exist for putting an item on the agenda: (1) the board is requested to take an action on the item; (2) the board needs to be informed about it; or (3) the board through discussion can offer input without taking action. Identifying items “For Action” or “For Information” also helps the board accomplish its work.
Thus, at the beginning of a report, a presenter is asked to say if the item coming before the board is for action, information, or discussion. This prepares the board members to respond appropriately.
The reverse of this procedure is also helpful. If a committee or officer has no business requiring the action or discussion of the board and has no information the board particularly needs, the proper statement is “no report.” Some officers fear they might appear unproductive if they bring no report to the board. Consequently the board is forced to endure such comments as:
“My Christian education committee met with all members present on September 21. We had an interesting discussion of the Halloween party planned for the children next month by Alice and Donna. The new children’s offering envelopes were passed around, and everyone liked them. Plans for winter adult classes aren’t completed, but Will expects to have them ready for us next month . …”
While all these matters are of interest to the committee itself, it can handle them on its own authority without the advice and consent of the board. Occasionally, officers need to be reminded that “no report” officially means the committee is working hard on its own business and currently needs nothing from the board.
How long should meetings be?
At one church I served, board meetings began at 7:30 and lasted until 10 P.M., and sometimes 10:30 or 11:00. Through refining the flexible agenda process and getting better acquainted with the officers and their committees, I was able to chip away at the length of those meetings. Eventually the board rarely met for more than two hours.
At first not even I believed the work could get done in two hours, but the officers and I found ways to get the same amount of business done in less time.
One simple technique works wonders in keeping a board on schedule: We printed on the agenda the time each report was to begin. Just as we knew in advance what items were coming to the board for action, we also had a feel from the committees for how much time the items would require or how controversial they might be. Thus, we allotted time to agenda items according to their need.
Officers could glance at the agenda and recognize that the finance committee had major items coming up because its report was placed first and had been given one-half hour for several action items. The building and grounds committee, on the other hand, would likely have little to report because it was last and was given the minimum five minutes.
In the same way, the printed agenda gave a continuous sense of how we were doing on the schedule. If we were far behind, extraneous comments were kept to a minimum. If we were ahead, the group might invest more time on a subject of common interest.
One of the difficulties in keeping meetings short is the phenomenon called “air time.” Many officers believe, without realizing it, that their presence is validated if they have a chance to make two or three comments during the span of the meeting. They need to hear themselves talk. Some seem to want more air time than others. The job of the presiding officer is to allow a little air time to everyone who needs it without letting the schedule get out of hand. A helpful comment by the presiding officer might be, “Now, is there anyone wishing to speak who has not been heard on this matter?”
In training church officers, two suggestions pave the way for controlling air time. First, I encourage them to speak up in the board meetings, because their participation is important. Second, I ask them to be sure their comments are relevant and have not been made by anyone else in the same discussion.
Finally, the length of the board meeting is inversely proportional to the effectiveness of committees. If a committee has considered an issue carefully and presents its case to the board as fully as possible, both confusion and discussion time are saved. With a history of committee competence, officers learn to trust each other’s work and feel less need to rehash what the committee has already done.
How to get a motion approved
Obtaining approval for a new idea may seem like running the gauntlet. They’ll never buy this one! people begin to think. And often they’re right.
A strange phenomenon affects some people when they become board members. They grow cautious, even suspicious, because they are responsible for the spiritual and temporal business of God’s people. They feel pressure from the many constituencies of the congregation. They want to know the answers to all the possible questions before they act. This phenomenon, while good in itself, blocks progress.
The way to take advantage of this serious sense of responsibility is to anticipate the questions a responsible person would ask.
We used an “Action Form” to present the kinds of information normally needed by a board to make an informed decision. On the Action Form is space to fill in this information: (1) action requested (motion stated in full); (2) person or group initiating action; (3) date of request and date action is to take effect; (4) the need, problem, or concern this action addresses; (5) how this action would meet the need; (6) expected cost (both financial and in number of people and time); and (7) alternative solutions considered but rejected.
When a proposal is presented in that format, the officers have everything before them in black and white. The presenter need make only a few general comments about the proposal and let the paper do the talking. The Action Form forces the committee to do its homework in order to bring in the best possible proposal, and it gives a sense of confidence and security to the more conservative board members. One thing the Action Form will not do, however, is make a bad idea look good.
Remember the council meeting described in Acts 15 that took place at First Church, Jerusalem? Debate took up the early part of the meeting, with people speaking enthusiastically on both sides of the issue of circumcision for the Gentiles.
After a while, Peter gave his opinions on the matter.
Next on the docket, the guests were invited to tell stories of their mission among the Gentiles, probably answering many of the questions the elders had.
When it appeared everything had been said, the presiding officer summarized the discussion and proposed a solution. A vote was taken, and the resolution passed overwhelmingly. The group even delegated two members to carry the decision to the Gentile churches.
Even today, that’s not a bad way to get work done in our board meetings.
David Sawyer is a denominational executive active in Faith Presbyterian Church, Des Peres, Missouri.
Copyright © 2002 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal.Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.
