Aug. 4, 2009 - Three (Count 'em, only THREE) Committees
One of my favorite governance writers is David La Piana, President of La Piana Consulting and the author of “The Non-Profit Strategy Solution”, an excellent resource on strategic planning. In a recent blog, La Piana discusses something we association managers have all talked about—getting rid of committees. I want to bring some of La Piana’s points home to my own sphere of reference, the membership organization.
One management strategy that seems to me to be necessary in this day of diminishing resources for associations is that the good manager knows how much things cost. Go beyond the electric bill: how much does a committee meeting cost? Factor in the overhead; support staff salaries for preparation, travel; and time spent in meetings, minutes and follow-up. Some associations even factor in the dollar value of the meeting participants’ time—this is, after all a contribution to the organization and for the participant (particularly independent contractors) this translates into dollars and cents.
Once you’ve done that analysis for each committee, let your Directors know. Directors are, after all, the keepers of the association resources. They should know what programs are costing them, and how much each meeting relies on member and staff support!
After a period of practicing this reporting technique, you may find that meetings get shorter and more productive—and some may disappear altogether. And let’s face it, if you’re a small association with few resources to spend on extraneous activities, you’ll be richer by far if these committees go away.
La Piana suggests that a non-profit Board needs only three committees: Internal Affairs, External Affairs, and Governance. The Internal Affairs Committee has a job description that embraces finance, personnel, and facilities and capital acquisitions. The External Affairs Committee might have a job description which includes public relations, programs including social and educational events, fundraising, and legislative and advocacy issues.
And finally, the Governance Committee—important in recruiting members, orienting them, over-seeing elections, evaluating the effectiveness of the Board, and training new leadership. Perhaps you’ll find this the most important committee of all, and this discovery may be an “aha” moment if your organization has been program-oriented and has neglected to develop a program of infrastructure capacity-building.
As a side note, La Piana eliminates the Executive Committee. His reasons are that in an environment where the Board of Directors is properly constituted and meets frequently (like monthly), and if policy manuals and plans are up-to-date (big if’s, I know), the Exec Committee isn’t needed, and often overshadows the work of the Board of Directors as a whole.
Within the Realtor organization, there may be a need for a couple of specialized function committees, like MLS Policy and Professional Standards. But think of an organization where most member functions can be relegated to three basic committees. Not only would the support resources to sustain a large number of committees be diminished, but the resulting coordination of activities into three major activity groups would greatly enhance the efficiency of association operations.
Your association has to decide on these organizational issues—but consider this: an association has many other ways of getting work done and carrying out its mission than depending on traditional committees. As association managers, we know about task forces and work groups and PAGs. We also have the technology—often free--for many other forms of collaboration and communication. And we are faced with a diminishing resource of member time and patience for old governance structures, particularly with our younger leaders.
Once a Board of Directors finds out exactly how much time and money is dedicated to each and every committee meeting and it begins to evaluate the return on the investment in each of its committees, Mr. La Piana’s governance ideas may be just the solution for an association.
Aug. 5, 2009 - RE: Three (Count 'em, only THREE) Committees
Posted by Kathy Roberts
I think it would be interesting to talk with someone who has actually implemented this and has a track record. I suspect what would typically happen is that staff would be making more decisions and running with the ball, and there would be less involvement by members. I just wonder at what point this disengagement becomes a problem and the pendulum swings the other way, wiping out the executive on its return trip.
Judith - We've had just three "committees" for about two years. We have the Board of Directors, MLS and Finance - big difference compared to the 23 before. Every other task that is necessary is performed by Taskforces and Workgroups. These have a specific goal, the outcome is date-specific, and members know just how much work is going to be required before they agree to participate. Gone are the days of endless, pointless meetings. The best benefit from this arrangement is that there is room for "new blood". New agents feel that they can be involved and don't have to wait forever to go through the chairs. The only downside we have experienced is some traditional members like to put their committee involvement on their resume so they complain a little. We actually ask our Taskforces to put in some real work, taking up space is not an option!
Actually, you raise the point that was in my mind as I wrote the blog. But I think that as AEs, we must begin to estimate member involvement in new ways--because members want to be involved, but not in the 'butt in seat' ways we currently measure.
Also, the fact that staff makes more decisions is true: younger members, especially, belive that staff should do their jobs and not nag volunteers about unimportant stuff. It's a fine line, anticipating what decisions leadership wants to make and should make, and what decisions are really staff/management decisions which are a turn-off to busy members.
Member-driven associations are important, but what decisions they are making as the drivers needs clear and flexible definition as leaders come and go, get younger and have less time to spend on management activities.
I don't think we are in disagreement, but these conversatiions are important to everyone! Hope others join in....
Carol: I think the big revelation for me in La Piana's scenario is the Governance Committee. As he defines it, the Governance Committee is really central to association success--it's the one charged with making sure everything else works. Most importantly, it conducts evaluatiions of the work of the Board of Directors (who else would do this?) and the effectiveness of the Board in meeting the association's mission.
LaPiana says these are the evaluations a Governance Committee should be making:
Evaluation of the board and organization’s ability to think, plan and act strategically
Review of the fiscal oversight process of
Evaluation of financial resources
Process of hiring and supporting the Executive Director
Assessment of board members serving as ambassadors to the community
Evaluation of legal and ethical integrity and accountability
I suspect the Governance Committee might also be thought of as a kind of on-going structural audit committee. At any rate, as I point out in my blog, this kind of oversight is rare, I think, in Realtor organizations. Hmmmm. Guess I've found a topic for another blog....
A behind the scenes look at organized real estate--what works in an association, what doesn't, and what a long time AE sees as challenges facing the industry from the viewpoint of its professional organization.
RSS Blog Feed
