My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CCP 06-24-2002
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
CCP 06-24-2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:17:16 PM
Creation date
11/13/2006 4:04:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
114
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The Policy Governance@ Model <br /> <br />Page 14 of 16 <br /> <br />To illustrate the nature of what is reported in a Policy Governance monitoring report, we will use two <br />items from an Executive Limitations policy already shown. In that policy. among other unacceptable <br />means. the CEO was told he or she cannot (1) expend more funds than have been received in the <br />fiscal year to date except through acceptable debt and (2) indebt the organization in an amount <br />greater than can be repaid by certain. otherwise unencumbered revenues within 60 days, but in no <br />event more than $200.000. Here is what the monitoring data might look like for these two provisions: <br />Item 1: Through the end of May. $3,694,800 has been expended. Receipts in the same period were <br />$3,654.728. The shortfall of $40,072 was offset by a $60,000 short term loan. Item 2: Total debt is a <br />45 day working capital loan for $60,000 incurred on May 25. Revenues of $75,000 from our <br />foundation grant, guaranteed by letter of May 5, are not otherwise encumbered and will be used, in <br />part, to retire the debt prior to due date. <br /> <br />Notice that the data are rather bare-bones, only enough to answer the question, unobseured by <br />incidental information. Board members should adopt a "prove it to me" attitude, so if the information <br />submitted is insufficient to convince them, then more detail can be added. But the detail must be <br />such that directly address the criteria. For example, what data prove the "not otherwise <br />encumbered" statement? Obviously. the complexities of some organizations will cause the <br />monitoring data to have more facets than in our simple example. Even then, however, the reported <br />data should be as brief as possible and maintain a razor-sharp connection to the policy-based <br />criteria being monitored. If more interesting, explanatory information, other than that directly <br />addressing the criteria, is desired by the board or offered by the CEO. it should not clutter the <br />monitoring report, but be distributed separately. Board members can know anything they wish, but <br />they should never be in doubt about what is disclosure of performance on the board's criteria and <br />what is not. <br /> <br />Using similar criterion-focused reasoning, when the board seeks to evaluate itself, it compares its <br />actual behavior and accomplishment with the behavior and accomplishment it committed to in its <br />Governance Process and Board-Staff Linkage policies (Carver, 1997b). Policy Governance boards <br />tend to self evaluate on a frequent basis-we recommend every meeting-because a more <br />sophisticated system requires continual tending. <br /> <br />Board Meetings <br /> <br />Because in Policy Governance the board is in charge of its own job. board meetings become the <br />board's meetings rather than management's meetings for the board. Board meetings occur because <br />of the need for board members to learn together, to contemplate and deliberate together, and to <br />decide together. Board meetings are not for reviewing the past, being entertained by staff. helping <br />staff do its work, or performing ritual approvals of staff plans. As a result, many board meetings may <br />not look like traditional board meetings at all, but learning and studying sessions or joint meetings <br />with other boards. particularly in communities where boards rarely talk with each other. <br /> <br />The CEO is always present. but is not the central figure. Other staff might be present when they <br />have valuable input on matters the board is to decide. For community boards. with rare exceptions <br />meetings would be open~not to please the law. but because a board commitment to transparency. <br />The board is not merely a body to confirm committee decisions, but the body that makes the <br />decisions. Board committees might be used to increase the board's understanding of factors and <br />options, but never to assume board prerogatives or remove difficult choices from the board table. In <br />contrast to the old bromide that "the real works takes place in committees,"' in Policy Governance <br />the real work takes place in the board meeting. <br /> <br />Board meetings should thus be more about the long term future than the present or short term <br />future. . . more about ends than means. . . more about a few thoroughly considered large decisions <br />than many small ones. And by their very character. meetings should demonstrate that the board's <br />primary relationship is with owners, not with staff. <br /> <br />hltp://www.earvergovernance.com/model.htm <br /> <br />6/12/2002 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.