The OLC Board of Directors in committed to and operates according to the Carver Policy Governance Model.
What is policy governance?
Policy governance is a method of governing an organization that is based on the development of policies. These policies identify the many ways in which a not-for-profit organization needs to show accountability. They also provide a framework for the Board of Directors to do its job.
The Board of Directors is ultimately accountable for the organization. But many Boards tend to be "hands on". They actively manage the day-to-day business of the organization. But a policy governance Board identifies which policies needs to be developed. It develops the policies. And then it holds itself and staff responsible for doing business within these policies.
Why Carver?
The Carver model of governance is a policy governance model. How is it different from other models?
Under policy governance, a Board could choose to look at an organization's or an Executive Director's effectiveness. For instance, it might do this by making policies for how they handle finances or personnel issues or how they file needed papers with the government, or how they pay bills. Many Boards often do not get around to defining why the organization has all these policies.
John Carver asks a good question: when was the last time your Board sat around and talked only about literacy and how to make life better for people who have low literacy levels? Boards often spend a lot of time talking about staff pay, membership fees and which projects the ED should apply for. Are these really questions which a Board ought to deal with or are they questions that could be handled by an ED under suitable guidelines? John Carver wants Boards to focus only at the big picture and not get caught up in daily details.
Clarifying Responsibilities
Under the Carver model, the Board must monitor its own work and find out how well it is doing its job. This rarely happens under other models.
The Carver model works with four areas of policy. Two areas of policy describe how the Board needs to do its work. One area of policy talks about how the ED does his or her work (Executive Parameters). And the final area of policy is around what the Board thinks the organization should be achieving (Ends).
The Board must report on the two first areas of policy. The ED must reports on the other two areas of policy (Executive Parameters and Ends).
It is not uncommon to find Boards that are doing the ED's work - much to the dismay of the ED. And in doing so, these Boards ignore their own work - connecting with the moral ownership and monitoring the organization.
Connecting with the Moral Ownership
The Carver model assumes that all the individual directors and the whole Board as a unit represent a certain group of people. A Board of Directors has to decide who exactly that group is. This group is called the "moral ownership". The group might be citizens of a particular geographical area. Or, if you are a membership organization, your moral ownership might be your members.
Under Carver, the Board's role is to connect with this group. Under other models of governance, Boards rarely connect with their moral ownership in a meaningful way. They then run the risk that they no longer can be said to represent the group.
Monitoring
Many critics of the Carver model say that the Board loses control over the organization. This is an interesting critique because Boards rarely have the kind of control they think they have. For example, most "hands on" Boards do not even evaluate their ED on a regular basis. So how concerned can they really be said to be about performance?
Under Carver, the Board can develop as many policies as it feels it needs in order to be aware of, and accountable for, what is going on in the organization. Each policy can be stated to the depth the Board believes is necessary. The Board can also say how often it wants to hear about compliance with a particular policy.
Once the Board is done writing the policies, it is up to the ED to interpret the policies and put them into motion. The Board evaluates the ED against these policies. This is a fair way to monitor because from the start the ED knows what he or she is going to be measured against.
What does this mean for Board meetings?
At meetings, the Board monitors the existing policies in terms of its own work and the ED's work. It does not focus on what exactly the organization is doing and how it is doing it. This is left up to the ED. Ideally, the ED reports to the Board before the meetings and this report is only addressed if there are questions.
At each Board meeting, a Carver Board will also receive education. This could take many forms. It could be information sessions from members in the community, training in the Carver model, information on financial practices and anything else that the Board thinks it needs to know about to do its job better.
The third component of a typical Board meeting is linking with the moral ownership. How does the Board intend to do this? How well is the Board doing this?
In general, Board meetings are shorter and more focused. There is greater emphasis on decision making.
In conclusion
Moving to the Carver model is an important shift from the way that many Boards have historically worked. It can involve a fair amount of work to make the transition. But the rewards are well worth it. You can be clear about what skills you need at the Board table and recruit for them. As a Board, you will give very clear directions to your ED and very clear performance indicators. You have also given your ED the trust and flexibility to do what he or she has been hired to do.
The Board decides what the organization should achieve and the ED decides how to get the work done. The Board then monitors to make sure that the ED does, in fact, get the work done.