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.

Listening to our Sources

Fifth in a series of posts about the January UUA Board meeting

The new draft of the UUA "ends" took into account a lot of feedback from various groups we are accountable to (think "Gathered Here" and  the World Cafe with Youth as two of them) - and we want more.

The District Presidents Association (DPA), our partners in linking with member  congregations, is currently in the process of contacting nearly 100 congregations across the US to get their feedback on these new outcomes.  We have surveys going out to Young Adults and unaffiliated UUs (those who identify as UU but are not currently a member of a congregation), focus groups with Youth and Liberal Religious Educators Association (LREDA) members; interviews with members of various affinity groups, historians, and theologians, as well as an opportunity for anyone who wants to, to weigh in (see below).  Much of the work on the "non-congregational Sources" has been with Unity Consulting, who are creating a set of methodologies for a smaller post-June board to be able to continue this kind of dialogue.

Will the UUA Board actually use this feedback?  Yes.  A group of 5 UUA trustees and 3 DPA presidents will spend several weeks in early April making "meaning" of the feedback, i.e.:  looking for common themes. This will be provided to the Board at the April meeting, and the same group will spend most of May identifying recommendations for potential changes to these draft ends. 

Let your voice be heard!  You can click here to provide your own feedback on why the UUA exists. 

The Last January

First in a series of blogs about the January 2013 UUA Board meeting

For me that is – this will be the sixth January UUA Board meeting before I leave the board in June as part of our downsizing to a more manageable (and effective) number of trustees. 

This board meeting includes finalizing a large number of proposals for by-laws changes.    There are bold ones (the combination of three “Mid-America” districts into one region, assuming passage by their member congregations) and others that we think reflect what delegates have already approved (electronic voting). We will not be submitting by-laws changes around General Assembly, but rather continuing what is a fairly complex conversation.

The meeting also kicks off the start of intensive dialogues on the impacts of the Association (the “Ends”) with the Board’s Sources of Authority and Accountability (what John Carver calls “moral owners”), with our DPA partners and through the work done with Unity Consulting around the voices of our other 4 “sources”.  You can expect to see a variety of ways to comment on these desired outcomes over the next few months, with the final "Ends" adopted at the June board meeting. 

It seems appropriate that my first January meeting in 2008 included "Policy Governance as Holy Work", which resulted in the first set of outcomes (Ends) for the Association.  Check back over the next few weeks -- the entire packet can be downloaded here. 

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.