Policy Governance does not always work. In the article titled SDC to review contracts, spending, Georgia Pabst states
Earlier this year, however, the board voted to reject policy governance and return to its committee structures because some members thought policy governance placed too much power in the hands of the CEO. http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/sdc-to-review-contracts-spending-4t3cp4t-135420843.html
During research in the area of board governance, it was discovered that committees can serve worthwhile functions if they meet the following criteria:
- The purposes are carefully thought out and there is no overlap
- The mandates are very specific
- Each statement in the mandate is reviewed after asking the question, “Is this a function of management or governance?” If it is a function of management and governance, change is made to the statement to enable the board to govern risks without interfering in management.
- When reviewing issues, committees are required to report all options (not only those the members prefer) with the pros and cons of each option to the designate body, which is usually the full board
-
The full board make the final decisions unless the decision making power has been delegated to the executive committee of the board.
- The executive committee of the board makes time-limited (emergency decisions) and all other decisions when the board is unable to obtain a quorum for its regularly scheduled meetings.
- Committees understand when and where their role ends.
-
All members have received training in the Decision Making Model of Governance and have taken the time to determine where management ends and governance begins.
To assist boards in this endeavour the Decision Making Model of Governance was developed. For more information, feel free to contact us or to obtain training materials to make your life easier refer to this link.
