The $100,000 Question

Third in a series of posts about the April UUA Board Meeting

The virtual UU skies have lately been focused on a decision coming out of Sunday's UUA board meeting:  hiring a consultant to help us (staff and board) create a system to measure whether or not the roughly $20 million we spend each year is working.  By "working", I mean whether or not what we do moves us towards the results we have said we want.

Described by one blogger as "marriage counseling", the solution is born out of the frustration of both Board and Staff around our current inability to provide tangible measurements for the effectiveness of the budgeted dollars.  The board insists that such measurement is doable, and cites examples from other industries; the Administration has made multiple attempts, none of which have satisfied the Board's need for accountability.  This is not about "marriage counseling" or "a consultant to work out their relationship"; it is about a nuanced and complex set of skills needed to "measure the unmeasurable".

An old adage says "you measure what you think is important".  This applies to the non-profit world as well.  Rather than financial return, the investor is putting in money to help achieve the organization's mission.  The founder of Developing Indigenous Resources, for example,  is a former public health doctor (and member of my congregation) who is fanatical about measuring outcomes.  Do I invest so that his home health workers average 4.2 home visits/month, or rather that infant mortality in a slum of 16,000 people dropped to one fifth of its previous rate in six short years?

How willing are you to continue to invest in an organization whose mission has lofty goals, but can't tell you if we are making progress towards them?

I do not think this is easy, nor do I think it is impossible.  The Board has identified $100,000 (one half of one percent of the annual budget) to hire a consultant to help create these measurements. I understand why this amount is disconcerting, especially in light of recent UUA layoffs, but given what is at stake, worth doing.

I believe we have a highly dedicated and competent staff who are doing good work -- what I don't know if whether or not this work is moving the needle.

Hearing Voices

Second in a series of posts about the April UUA board meeting

 

Last January the Board drafted a set of outcomes for the Association – what results do we want to produce, and for whose benefit?  In partnership with the District Presidents Association, we have received feedback from more than 1000 Unitarian Universalists.  You can see the draft here.

More than 150 of these voices were called and elected leadership of congregations chosen by the district boards because they were superb examples of the values of Unitarian Universalism.  These were rich interviews conducted by our district partners.  Over 100 called and elected congregation leaders responded by survey.  About 200 were drawn from our Current and Future Generations – Youth, Young Adults, Children (through proxy with Liberal Religious Educators), and people who identify and Unitarian Universalist but are not currently members. These were done through both focus groups and survey.  Interviews and surveys were also done with a little over 200 people from those  representing our Vision of Beloved Community.  A number of historians and the writings of key historical figures were consulted.  In addition to the roughly 600 people who represented our Sources of Authority and Accountability, we had nearly 400 individual UUs who responded via survey. 

What did we hear?  A lot.  A quote that typifies the overall reaction to the draft came from one of our selected congregations in response to the question “To what degree does this reflect the values of your congregation?”  Though 94% of them said it “strongly” or “mostly”, one congregation also said:  “As a matter of substance, yes.  As a matter of style, not so much.”

Some of the feedback was more about language than concept, but a significant number also addressed the latter.   For example, a description of congregations as “intentionally inclusive, multi-generational and multi-cultural in powerful mission to, and with, under-served and un-served communities” was taken to task for the patriarchal tone of “servicing” communities rather than being in partnership with them, as well as raising polity concerns about the UUA describing the mission of a congregation. The concept of “covenanted communities” raised both plaudits and concerns (described as “bubble-speak” by one), and while many liked the clear specificity of language around net increases of congregations, people served, and inspired leadership, others groaned “it is SOOO not about growth. Growth is an unavoidable outcome of doing covenanted community well.”

In response to this feedback, trustees have started rewriting some of these statements.  The DPA/UUA Joint Task Force on Linkage, which has been collecting and analyzing the feedback, will be making suggestions to the board in an iterative process over the next month.  The intent is still to have a final draft for the board to approve in its pre-General Assembly meeting in June.  This then becomes the guidance for the Administration, which has been a key part of creating and revising these statements.   

Criteria for Continuing UUA Trustees

Sixth in a series of posts about Justice GA and the June GA Board Meeting

This is the first (and only) year that the Board is selecting 4 of its own replacements for a smaller board that starts in 2013.  The good news is that there are a lot more than 4 board members interested in continuing on the board.  Depending on which term length interests them, they can be appointed by the Board or nominated by the Nominating Committee. 

So on what basis does the Board select its continuity?  There will be a call later this month to continue the discussion that started at the Board meeting -- since I will be somewhere in Normandy on a bicycle, and am not eligible for continuing (for reasons other than the bicycle), here are my criteria:

What is the unique contribution of continuing trustees?  While what I call the "laundry list" of identities is very important for the Nominating Committee, it is less so for the Board (in terms of the 4 we appoint) because we are appointing only 4.  It is impossible to get the full spectrum of representation with 4 -- though what we do appoint clearly impacts the work of the Nominating Committee to insure that the final board does. The good news here is that the current Board is more diverse than the ones I served on previously -- for example, it would actually be impossible to have 4 white women "of a certain age" (just like me) appointed, or 4 straight white men. 

In my opinion, the most important criteria for continuing trustees is a) their knowledge of and b) accountability around our chosen form of governance.  According to the man himself, the principle reasons for the failure of Policy Governance® are 1) the board not holding itself accountable to its own policies, and 2) turnover in board members without adequate training.  We are getting better at the first, but not there yet, and adding the second could easily allow a ten year investment to go down the drain.  This is not "sunk investment syndrome" on my part, but rather my belief that this form of governance really does provide a structure for "normal" people to serve effectively on boards and be accountable to those they serve.

Accountability means the continuing trustee faithfully fills out those never-ending monitoring surveys, and makes linkage a distinct priority in their activities.  We have the information on who does (or does not) do that, but it's not public -- I vacillate between reminding myself that we are all volunteers, and wanting the kind of scrutiny that legislators get when they are tracked on how many votes they were present for, and how accessible they are to their constituents.

In terms of new trustees, not all Policy Governance® skills are created equal. Two questions I would like to see the Nominating Committee ask of prospective trustees who say they have Policy Governance® skills are

1. Could you tell me what an operating definition is?
2. Could I see an example of a monitoring report that you have evaluated? 

I am also looking for trustees who are willing to invest in the board/staff relationship, understanding that we have different roles but can collaborate on this journey together.