Post by philiprosenthal on Apr 25, 2006 8:27:22 GMT
PROPOSED ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD FOR HIS PEOPLE CHURCH
Comments to Philip@Rosenthal.net
By: Philip Rosenthal
Circulated February 2003
INTRODUCTION 1
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR GOOD ORGANISATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY 1
WEAKNESSES OF EXISTING ACCOUNTABILITY STRUCTURES 2
EXISTING ACCOUNTABILITY STRUCTURES INCLUDE: 2
Annual General Meeting 2
Existing eldership 2
The Morningstar Apostolic Board 2
Church financial audit team 3
Pastors meeting 3
PROPOSED NEW 'ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD OF ELDERS' 3
Proposed system of selection of board of elders 3
Proposed method of communication of congregation and senior leadership 4
BENEFITS OF PROPOSED SYSTEM 4
Introduction
This document outlines a proposed accountability structure for His People church that will benefit the church in many ways such as: improving accountability; communication between senior leadership and the congregation; raise positive suggestions; reduce congregation turnover and resolve issues of concern.
Within a large organisation, systems that are formalised function well, but systems not formalised break down and often don't function at all. While the church has successfully formalised systems such as the cell group structure; training systems; campus ministry; music ministry, the accountability system has not been formalised and thus mostly ceased to function with the growth of the church. Formalisation of accountability within the church is thus needed.
Minimum requirements for good organisational accountability
· There must be people, with access to the senior leadership who are willing and able to ask difficult questions and obtain answers.
· These people must not be:
- dependent on the senior leadership for example financially or as family members or for their promotion.
- members of the executive;
· They should be:
- People who are respected by the organisation members;
- They should be known and accessible to those with an interest in the organisation.
- People of courage and wisdom prepared to challenge those in authority, but not abuse this responsibility to cause difficulties for the leaders.
· The system should not be designed around an individual or a group of people currently in authority, but should function equally well with their successors.
· The system should contribute meaningfully and beneficially and help protect those in authority from making mistakes.
Weaknesses of existing accountability structures
The existing church accountability structures are all useful and appreciated, but are not adequate. This inadequacy becomes more serious in the case of a mega-church, because in a mega-church, the informal relational accountability methods present in a small church break down due to scale:
· Senior leaders are not approachable by members of the congregation other than their selected employees because of barriers erected which include: large staff to screen communications; status separation due to rank; security guards; the work pressure of senior leaders etc. These measures also serve to undermine personal relationships between the senior leadership and members of the congregation, making it more difficult for friends to hold them accountable.
· Employees are not likely to challenge leaders to address problems because of risk to their promotion prospects or financial situation.
· Many of these barriers are necessary protection to the time of the senior leadership, but nevertheless have the negative effect of reducing accountability. Some people at least must be able to get past the barriers.
Existing accountability structures include:
Annual General Meeting
While this is good and appreciated, it does not fulfil good accountability purposes because:
i. It occurs only once a year;
ii. The size of the group makes it inappropriate for sensitive questions: It is so large that most would not have the courage to ask questions. Those with courage would not want to embarrass a senior leader in front of such a large audience with a sensitive question. Further, it would not be appropriate to answer sensitive questions that may for example expose divisions of opinion or misconduct of individuals in such a large group.
iii. The meeting is too short to allow meaningful discussion of issues.
Existing eldership
At present, the existing elders are all pastors, salaried members of the church and mostly part of the church executive team. While they may all be good people, they cannot perform the function of holding themselves accountable. Good organisational accountability involves a separation of powers from the executive and those holding the organisation accountable. Most of the congregation do not know who these elders are or what their powers or responsibilities are. In addition, Biblically, the definition of elder would seem to be broader than that of pastor, whereas these are a select group of pastors. It is also unclear when this group of elders meet or what agenda is discussed at these meetings - or how the congregation could raise issues of concern with them. Neither have they reported back on what was discussed or decided.
The Morningstar Apostolic Board
While the Morningstar Board is appreciated, they are far removed from the local church. They have no direct contact with the membership or the issues facing the congregation - unless these are raised by the senior leadership or reach crisis proportions. Members of the congregation further have no way of contacting the Morningstar board to raise issues. Very few are every likely to make use of the board to raise accountability issues because:
i. They would not want to be seen to be undermining the church leadership;
ii. They would not know how to contact the Morningstar board and it may be a long time to wait for the next visit;
iii. It is easier to leave the church than raise an issue through this avenue;
iv. It would waste the time of the Morningstar board to raise lesser issues that should be dealt with on a local church level.
Church financial audit team
While the church does have a financial audit team, this team as far as I am aware does not have powers to question or contribute to major issues such as the decision-making on the budget allocation or the salaries of staff.
Pastors meeting
While the pastors meeting does give a form of accountability, it also has weaknesses in that:
i. All present are dependent on the senior leadership financially, for promotion and for their ministries.
ii. The agenda for the meeting is entirely under the control of the senior leadership, who thus can dismiss or indefinitely postpone an issue for discussion on the basis of lack of time.
iii. It appears that promotion prospects within the organisation in general is undermined by challenging senior leadership.
Proposed new 'accountability board of elders'
The purpose of the proposed 'accountability board of elders' would be to strengthen church accountability and improve communication between the senior leadership and the church membership. It would seek to ensure that the church stays on track towards the goal we believe God has called us - and avoid missing things of importance.
The board of elders would meet with three or four senior leaders once every two months to discuss an agenda set by the board. Should a major issue requiring discussion come up, a special meeting could be called either by the senior leadership or the board of elders.
Proposed system of selection of board of elders
It is suggested that the board of elders be elected bi-annually with each pastorate sending one representative, who may not be a salaried employee of the church. The pastor would ask for nominations beforehand from cell groups, who he would screen and then read a list of approved candidates at a pastorate meeting. Criteria for approval would include the standard Biblical list of eldership requirements (Titus 1:6-9; 1 Timothy 3:1-10). The church may introduce other requirements such as:
- having been a committed member of the church for 3 years or more;
- having at some time served in another leadership capacity in the church.
The purpose of these criteria would be to ensure a high quality of person and that they are in alignment with the vision of the church.
It is suggested that half the eldership board could be up for election on alternate years - to ensure some continuity of experience. It would not be acceptable for the elders to be chosen unilaterally by the senior leadership, because they could then select people unlikely to challenge them and marginalize any who do.
Proposed method of communication of congregation and senior leadership
Members of the congregation would be introduced to the elders so they could speak to them. Any issues or suggestions they wish to raise could be done with any of these people. It would be to the discretion of the elder to decide whether the issue warranted discussion at the board meeting or whether it should be addressed in another manner.
At the pastorate meetings, elected board members could give feedback on issues discussed, which are not of too sensitive a nature. If they are sensitive, they could report back just to the individual or group of individuals who raised the issue.
Benefits of proposed system
The benefits of the proposed system would include:
· Improved accountability for the church leadership.
· This will benefit the senior leadership by providing useful input from the congregation; by protecting them from making mistakes; raising issues that may be blindspots; helping to keep them on track towards long-term vision despite business with immediate issues.
· It will benefit other leadership by providing a means of appeal to raise issues that may otherwise be sidelined through normal channels.
· By providing a means of resolving problems before they become intolerable, it will improve the church's retention of longstanding members and reduce congregation turnover.
· It will benefit the congregation by allowing a forum to address issues they would not be otherwise able to raise.
· It will allow additional flow of ideas to the senior leadership for improving the church.
Comments to Philip@Rosenthal.net
By: Philip Rosenthal
Circulated February 2003
INTRODUCTION 1
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR GOOD ORGANISATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY 1
WEAKNESSES OF EXISTING ACCOUNTABILITY STRUCTURES 2
EXISTING ACCOUNTABILITY STRUCTURES INCLUDE: 2
Annual General Meeting 2
Existing eldership 2
The Morningstar Apostolic Board 2
Church financial audit team 3
Pastors meeting 3
PROPOSED NEW 'ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD OF ELDERS' 3
Proposed system of selection of board of elders 3
Proposed method of communication of congregation and senior leadership 4
BENEFITS OF PROPOSED SYSTEM 4
Introduction
This document outlines a proposed accountability structure for His People church that will benefit the church in many ways such as: improving accountability; communication between senior leadership and the congregation; raise positive suggestions; reduce congregation turnover and resolve issues of concern.
Within a large organisation, systems that are formalised function well, but systems not formalised break down and often don't function at all. While the church has successfully formalised systems such as the cell group structure; training systems; campus ministry; music ministry, the accountability system has not been formalised and thus mostly ceased to function with the growth of the church. Formalisation of accountability within the church is thus needed.
Minimum requirements for good organisational accountability
· There must be people, with access to the senior leadership who are willing and able to ask difficult questions and obtain answers.
· These people must not be:
- dependent on the senior leadership for example financially or as family members or for their promotion.
- members of the executive;
· They should be:
- People who are respected by the organisation members;
- They should be known and accessible to those with an interest in the organisation.
- People of courage and wisdom prepared to challenge those in authority, but not abuse this responsibility to cause difficulties for the leaders.
· The system should not be designed around an individual or a group of people currently in authority, but should function equally well with their successors.
· The system should contribute meaningfully and beneficially and help protect those in authority from making mistakes.
Weaknesses of existing accountability structures
The existing church accountability structures are all useful and appreciated, but are not adequate. This inadequacy becomes more serious in the case of a mega-church, because in a mega-church, the informal relational accountability methods present in a small church break down due to scale:
· Senior leaders are not approachable by members of the congregation other than their selected employees because of barriers erected which include: large staff to screen communications; status separation due to rank; security guards; the work pressure of senior leaders etc. These measures also serve to undermine personal relationships between the senior leadership and members of the congregation, making it more difficult for friends to hold them accountable.
· Employees are not likely to challenge leaders to address problems because of risk to their promotion prospects or financial situation.
· Many of these barriers are necessary protection to the time of the senior leadership, but nevertheless have the negative effect of reducing accountability. Some people at least must be able to get past the barriers.
Existing accountability structures include:
Annual General Meeting
While this is good and appreciated, it does not fulfil good accountability purposes because:
i. It occurs only once a year;
ii. The size of the group makes it inappropriate for sensitive questions: It is so large that most would not have the courage to ask questions. Those with courage would not want to embarrass a senior leader in front of such a large audience with a sensitive question. Further, it would not be appropriate to answer sensitive questions that may for example expose divisions of opinion or misconduct of individuals in such a large group.
iii. The meeting is too short to allow meaningful discussion of issues.
Existing eldership
At present, the existing elders are all pastors, salaried members of the church and mostly part of the church executive team. While they may all be good people, they cannot perform the function of holding themselves accountable. Good organisational accountability involves a separation of powers from the executive and those holding the organisation accountable. Most of the congregation do not know who these elders are or what their powers or responsibilities are. In addition, Biblically, the definition of elder would seem to be broader than that of pastor, whereas these are a select group of pastors. It is also unclear when this group of elders meet or what agenda is discussed at these meetings - or how the congregation could raise issues of concern with them. Neither have they reported back on what was discussed or decided.
The Morningstar Apostolic Board
While the Morningstar Board is appreciated, they are far removed from the local church. They have no direct contact with the membership or the issues facing the congregation - unless these are raised by the senior leadership or reach crisis proportions. Members of the congregation further have no way of contacting the Morningstar board to raise issues. Very few are every likely to make use of the board to raise accountability issues because:
i. They would not want to be seen to be undermining the church leadership;
ii. They would not know how to contact the Morningstar board and it may be a long time to wait for the next visit;
iii. It is easier to leave the church than raise an issue through this avenue;
iv. It would waste the time of the Morningstar board to raise lesser issues that should be dealt with on a local church level.
Church financial audit team
While the church does have a financial audit team, this team as far as I am aware does not have powers to question or contribute to major issues such as the decision-making on the budget allocation or the salaries of staff.
Pastors meeting
While the pastors meeting does give a form of accountability, it also has weaknesses in that:
i. All present are dependent on the senior leadership financially, for promotion and for their ministries.
ii. The agenda for the meeting is entirely under the control of the senior leadership, who thus can dismiss or indefinitely postpone an issue for discussion on the basis of lack of time.
iii. It appears that promotion prospects within the organisation in general is undermined by challenging senior leadership.
Proposed new 'accountability board of elders'
The purpose of the proposed 'accountability board of elders' would be to strengthen church accountability and improve communication between the senior leadership and the church membership. It would seek to ensure that the church stays on track towards the goal we believe God has called us - and avoid missing things of importance.
The board of elders would meet with three or four senior leaders once every two months to discuss an agenda set by the board. Should a major issue requiring discussion come up, a special meeting could be called either by the senior leadership or the board of elders.
Proposed system of selection of board of elders
It is suggested that the board of elders be elected bi-annually with each pastorate sending one representative, who may not be a salaried employee of the church. The pastor would ask for nominations beforehand from cell groups, who he would screen and then read a list of approved candidates at a pastorate meeting. Criteria for approval would include the standard Biblical list of eldership requirements (Titus 1:6-9; 1 Timothy 3:1-10). The church may introduce other requirements such as:
- having been a committed member of the church for 3 years or more;
- having at some time served in another leadership capacity in the church.
The purpose of these criteria would be to ensure a high quality of person and that they are in alignment with the vision of the church.
It is suggested that half the eldership board could be up for election on alternate years - to ensure some continuity of experience. It would not be acceptable for the elders to be chosen unilaterally by the senior leadership, because they could then select people unlikely to challenge them and marginalize any who do.
Proposed method of communication of congregation and senior leadership
Members of the congregation would be introduced to the elders so they could speak to them. Any issues or suggestions they wish to raise could be done with any of these people. It would be to the discretion of the elder to decide whether the issue warranted discussion at the board meeting or whether it should be addressed in another manner.
At the pastorate meetings, elected board members could give feedback on issues discussed, which are not of too sensitive a nature. If they are sensitive, they could report back just to the individual or group of individuals who raised the issue.
Benefits of proposed system
The benefits of the proposed system would include:
· Improved accountability for the church leadership.
· This will benefit the senior leadership by providing useful input from the congregation; by protecting them from making mistakes; raising issues that may be blindspots; helping to keep them on track towards long-term vision despite business with immediate issues.
· It will benefit other leadership by providing a means of appeal to raise issues that may otherwise be sidelined through normal channels.
· By providing a means of resolving problems before they become intolerable, it will improve the church's retention of longstanding members and reduce congregation turnover.
· It will benefit the congregation by allowing a forum to address issues they would not be otherwise able to raise.
· It will allow additional flow of ideas to the senior leadership for improving the church.