I think Friends don't like it much because of the
implications it carries in terms of authority and control, but that's
not what it's used to mean in the context of organisational
governance. Governance is about how decisions are made, and we have
our own vital Quaker traditions in that regard. It's also about how
records are kept, how we communicate, and how we take all the
decisions that, for legal or practical reasons, can't be taken by the
Meeting in session.
There will be examples in this post. Some of them
are from my direct experience, and others are second-hand, and I will
not be differentiating between them. None will be in enough detail to
know about who or where, though some readers might think they
recognise the source, because many of these things have private
elements; I expect more people will think they recognise the source
than actually know anything about the situation I have drawn upon, so
please do not post in a way that seeks or seems to identify any
specific cases. They merely serve to illustrate the general points.
We like to think that Quakers are
non-hierarchical, but it won't appear so to those looking at the
structures of our organisations. Since the establishment of Quaker
gospel order in the
seventeenth century, and all its evolutions since, we have had
systems of nested structure. In Britain Yearly Meeting, we have Local
Meetings, the individual worshipping groups; several of these group
together to form an Area Meeting, and seventy of those group
together, along with the various centrally organised elements, to
form the Yearly Meeting. Not that long ago, the individual
worshipping group was generally a Preparatory Meeting and the groups
of these were Monthly Meetings, but it was determined that the change
of language was more understandable to newcomers or those outside the
Society, and probably better in terms of plain speaking, too. Go back
further, and Monthly Meetings were organised into Quarterly Meetings
or General Meetings, an intermediate layer of nesting, but these were
phased out on a practical basis in most of the country some time ago,
while they were phased out generally (with certain limited
exceptions) at the same time as PMs became LMs and MMs became AMs.
In North America,
liberal and conservative Yearly Meetings generally have Monthly
Meetings as the basic worshipping group, which may or may not be
grouped into Quarters or Quarterly Meetings before being grouped into
a Yearly Meeting. Structures in pastoral and evangelical Yearly
Meetings are more varied, though some have a similar structure. In
addition, there are three umbrella associations which YMs can
affiliate to; broadly, Friends General Conference (FGC) is an
association of liberal and conservative YMs, Friends United Meeting
(FUM) is an association of pastoral YMs, and Evangelical Friends
Church International (EFCI, formerly EFI) is an association of
evangelical YMs. All three have affiliates outside of the US, and at
least FUM and EFCI have affiliates outside of North America. However,
it is not the case that YMs are subordinate to these structures; they
are simply affiliates. A YM may affiliate to more than one, and I
understand that in some YMs, MMs might be “part of” more than one
YM.
With this sort of
variation around the world, one question that is always worth
considering is the distribution of authority and responsibility
between Meetings. In Britain YM, where authority exists within the
organisations and structures, it is largely central; Yearly Meeting
sets down reporting requirements and duties of AMs, defines how
marriages are to be conducted, sets out various procedures. However,
YM is composed of AMs, and the Friends each holds membership of.
There are concerns, that I shan't go into at this time, about the
amount of de facto
authority in the hands of national staff, but key decision-making
goes on at Yearly Meeting in session, which all members are free to
attend; between Yearly Meetings, it happens at Meeting for
Sufferings, a body composed of representatives from Area Meetings and
a few other bodies, or sometimes delegated to another central
committee – which will be composed of more unpaid volunteer
Friends, and answerable to Sufferings. Where new business comes to
Sufferings or YM in session, it is largely either forced on us by
circumstance, or has arisen in a Local or Area Meeting, been tested
in the AM in question, and passed by minute to Sufferings. These are
key principles and practices of our governance structure, and each YM
will have its own way of doing things that might distribute power and
responsibility differently, but structures must exist if a YM is to
be a single Meeting, rather than simple a confederation of
worshipping groups. Even where authority is vested ultimately in the
individual Meeting (or congregation), governance structures for the
YM must exist to allow for the interaction of those authorities and
resolving differences in order to act collectively.
But wait, say
some Friends. Do we really need all of this structure and
organisational baggage? Do we really need (in the UK) to be
registered charities with all of the reporting and associated
governance requirements?
Well, it depends
what we want to achieve. If we want nothing more than to be a series
of groups of people that get together to worship in a particular way,
then we need much less than we have. We don't need premises; venue
hire isn't too steep, and it's not like there's huge competition for
venues on a Sunday morning – and we don't even need to always meet
at that time. We don't need to have much communication with other
groups. We just meet, contribute what we can to meet the costs of
running our Meetings for Worship, appoint a few Friends to do the
small amount of work necessary for all of that, and we'd be good to
go.
That isn't what
being a Quaker is about, though. Being a Quaker is not, and has never
been, about subscribing to a set of shared beliefs, or turning up at
Meeting for Worship. Our faith calls for transformation in ourselves,
as do many others, but that is not all. From early in the life of our
Religious Society, we have felt called to do more – to transform
the world, to the extent of our ability. “True godliness don't turn
men out of the world,” said Penn, “but enables them to live
better in it, and excites their endeavours to mend it.” Scattered
worship groups might do good work, especially in terms of fund
raising, to support whatever local concern draws their attention, but
they would lack the clout to make government pay any attention to
what they have to say. They would not be able to pool enough
resources to take on big projects, being limited instead to
supporting the projects that others engage in – and we have often
felt led to projects and causes that are neglected by others, though
we often find others join in once we get the ball rolling.
Once we build the
resources necessary to do our work, it's necessary that those
resources be managed, and necessary that the work be managed. If we
wish to act in the manner of a charity, it becomes necessary to
register as charities. If we wish to maintain our privileged position
of performing legally valid marriages according to our own
traditional usage, we have to play ball on the requirements of doing
so – though we have certainly shown willing to push on that matter
when led to do so. If we have structures to enable our cooperation,
across Meetings in different areas, across the range of people and
communities represented across a Yearly Meeting – or across the
world – we have to make sure those structures run efficiently, and
effectively, and according to Quaker principles.
And so, I am
compiling and writing material for an annual report. One of the major
purposes of these reports, in terms of the regulatory framework in
which they sit, is to assure good governance. The aim is to ensure
that those entrusted with the resources of the charity are using them
for legitimate purposes, and purposes that are in line with the
stated purposes of the charity. That they are well-managed, and
compliant with other laws that apply to all organisations, such as
those around data protection and safeguarding of children and
vulnerable adults, or health and safety law and the Equality Act.
That there is suitable accountability within the organisation, and
external to it.
All that is true
for all charity trustees, and the principles of good governance apply
to us as to anyone else. However, we are organised in very unusual
ways, with very unusual decision-making systems. Understanding how to
apply these principles in the context of a Quaker organisation can be
difficult (and has presented challenges for Quaker organisations in
England and Wales in terms of their relationship with the Charity
Commission, though this has been improved by the work done to enable
the registration of all Area Meetings as charities). In explaining
some ways in which they can be made to fit in to Quaker structures –
or indeed in which they already do, inherently in Quaker methods,
though we might not recognise it – perhaps I can help people see
why they are not something purely worldly, but something that should
be inherent to our properly conducting our affairs in our own way.
Good governance
is accountable. In corporate governance in the business world, this
means that the executives are accountable to directors, who are
accountable to shareholders – and all accountable to government and
regulation, of course. This is a chain of representation, as well,
with generally some senior executives also being directors, and
directors appointed by the shareholders. There is often a
plutocratic–democratic element to this representation, with
shareholders electing directors based on one share, one vote (as
opposed to one person, one vote, and setting aside complications like
non-voting shares). In unincorporated associations and companies
limited by guarantee, the legal structures most commonly found
underlying Quaker organisations in the UK, you generally have a
defined membership and officers are democratically elected by that
membership, with the membership as a whole able to vote on certain
matters.
Accountability
for Quakers means that everything is accountable to the Meeting as a
whole. Just as our clerks are servants of the Meeting, and our
elders, and overseers, and treasurers, trustees are also servants of
the Area Meeting. We are not nominated to be in charge, we are not
(or at least should not be) set above other Friends, the arbiters of
what the Meeting as a whole should do. Trustees are held responsible,
by law, for certain things on behalf of the whole Meeting, and in
those things we must, in all reasonableness, vest trustees with
certain authority, but that authority is always subordinate to the
gathered Meeting. When trustees dictate certain actions that may not
be in their remit, not explicitly delegated to them by the Area
Meeting as a whole, it is not that they are superior and can overrule
the AM; such an action should only be taken where the trustees have
determined, after due discernment and taking relevant advice, that
there is a fundamental problem that must be resolved – usually of a
legal nature. So trustees may demand that a Local Meeting stop some
activity that they have been engaged in because it would threaten the
charitable status of the entire AM; they may demand that various
parts of the AM take certain actions, because failure to do so is
exposing the AM to legal liabilities. While some matters, such as
disposition of property not used for religious purposes, is often
entirely delegated to trustees, these overriding concerns can occur
in any area of Quaker activity – including worship.
It would not be
good governance, however, for the trustee body to simply dictate such
things and expect them to be done. Good governance is accountable and
is, to the extent possible, open. If a problem to be resolved is not
immediate, it should not be treated as such; if it is possible to
take time to help Friends understand the problem and resolve it
collectively, rather than by what would appear to be trustee diktat,
then it is best to do so. If it must be resolved as a matter of
urgency, care should be taken to explain as much as possible as soon
as possible. Furthermore, while it is trustees that have a special
legal responsibility that will most obviously lead to such actions,
we must not lose sight of the fact that we also expect other role
holders to take urgent actions without time to explain and discuss
beforehand; elders, individually or collectively, may have to take
immediate action in some circumstances, as will overseers, those
involved in safeguarding, and even those to whom we give
responsibility for premises and finance. Our clerks, in their role as
the interface between our Meetings and the world at large, must often
speak for us – and sometimes it is necessary for them to do so
between business meetings, when they will be seen as speaking with
the voice of the Meeting without being able to collectively discern
and minute what they should say. All of these cases are necessary,
and many of them are preferable over referring everything back to a
business meeting. It is simply necessary that those who act in such a
manner explain themselves fully and promptly, as appropriate to the
situations.
Accountability,
and being servants of the Meeting, also means that trustees should
act as their Meeting directs. Because of legal considerations, and
the competing requirements of good governance, this cannot be done
uncritically, and a healthy relationship between a trustee body and
the Meeting that appoints it will mean that stark directions should
no more be the norm from the Meeting to the trustee body than vice
versa. However, instruction,
request or advice from any part of the Meeting should be taken as a
significant factor in the deliberations, discernment and decisions of
trustees.
Good governance
means the exercise of leadership. This does not mean command, or even
necessarily always direction, but the setting of good examples and
the application of oversight. This goes hand-in-hand with
accountability; as well as the trustees being accountable to the
Meeting as a whole, any part of the Meeting will also be accountable
to trustees, and in exercising leadership trustees must ensure the
good governance of all parts of the Meeting besides themselves.
Trustees should exemplify good Quaker decision-making practice,
prayerful discernment and proper consideration of all information
available as well as seeking guidance of the Spirit. Trustees should
be integrated in the community, not apart from it, and thus in touch
with the concerns of the community.
Good governance
is also efficient and well-run. As Quakers, we might take longer to
take decisions about things, but this should not lead to cutting
corners. It is vital that, as a committee, trustees be effectively
administrated and smooth in its communication, both among members and
with the rest of the Meeting. Being well-run also means taking care
of those we ask to do work on our behalf. Burn-out on the part of a
person in a very responsible role can have significant consequences
for the individual, as well as for an organisation. As a
do-it-yourself faith community – in the sense that we, as a
community, do most of the necessary work ourselves – we place great
trust in one another, and take on significant work in many cases. We
must be prepared for the situation in which an individual crumbles
under the weight of the work, despite their best intentions;
similarly, and individual Friend can become unable to put as much
time and effort into a role as they once had, due to changes or
events elsewhere in their life, and we must be prepared for such
occurrences.
The risks
inherent in poor governance are potentially very large. We don't like
to think that Quakers are prone to corruption, but we are. Quakers
have embezzled from their Meetings. They have used expenses
inappropriately (though under-claiming is far more common in my
experience). They have taken procurement decisions for inappropriate
reasons. Strong oversight with the principles of good governance in
mind reduces these risks.
Governance can
also be poor by virtue of being overcautious, too worried about
risks, or tending to over-inflate them. In one case, a cooperative
venture between Meetings, involving one making use of the resources
of another, with mutually agreed consideration, was thrown into
disorder when the trustees of the Meeting making use of the resources
realised that they hadn't looked at the agreement and the activities
in question for some time. The cooperation was laid down, perhaps
prematurely, but even the advocates of that cooperation were relieved
to lay it down due to the difficulty that had had working with
trustees. It is perfectly possible that the end result would have
been the same even with better governance, but the lack of
communication and accountability between organs of the same Meeting –
and with the other Meeting – caused considerable bad feeling, and
it is also possible that, had it been handled more appropriately, it
would have produced a different outcome and continued cooperation.
But it was not
the fault of the trustees in post at the time that the governance of
the matter was poorer than might be desired. Arguably, it should be
seen as the fault of the trustee body over a longer period, and
perhaps of the Meeting as a whole, that trustees were in a position
of realising that they had very limited idea what was being done by
and in the name of their Meeting in relation to that cooperation.
It can be the
case that a short-term project (in the order of years) has its own
treasurer, and that treasurer may have to handle considerable sums
for that short time. Much money coming in, and much money going out.
It is tempting to arrange those financial matters in such a way that
the treasurer can get things done as quickly as possible, but that
means reduced oversight. Even if that treasurer does not give in to
temptation to embezzle money, even if they are not tempted, this can
be very disconcerting. In addition, effective financial oversight
does not only guard against peculation, but also mistakes. Where
someone has to pay for a large number of similar, but not identical
items or services, it is a reassurance as well as a sensible
protection that they not be solely relied upon to ensure that they
have got the details and prices of each item right. In this case, as
in any other, the need for multiple individuals to authorise payments
and sign off on purchase orders not only reduces the risk of damaging
errors or misappropriation of funds, it can be tremendously
reassuring to the individual involved.
It is also a
failure of good governance to hold that some important task is the
responsibility of all members of a community without having any
process in place to ensure that it is carried out. It is a common
experience that, where something is everyone's responsibility, it is
effectively no-one's responsibility. A small gathering might decide
that no named elder is needed, and discover that periods of worship –
or even silent grace at meals – extend far longer than expected
because no-one feels able to signal an end. Where pastoral care is
everyone's responsibility and no-one has taken it on specifically,
all but the most obvious situations requiring attention will go
neglected, as no-one feels they have the authority to, as they might
see it, pry into someone else's difficulties.
These are all
factors that represent risks for all parts of a Meeting's governance,
trustees and clerks and the actual Meetings for Worship for Business
themselves, and every other element. Every part of that, including
trustees, also has the potential to build good governance and uphold
one another, not with unnecessary procedures that bog down the
Spirit, but with necessary and/or helpful processes that allow the
Spirit to flow freely without so much worry about unexpected crises,
or being horribly disrupted by organisational disasters.
Where trustees
exercise dictatorial control over their Meetings, that is not good
governance. Where the opinions of clerks are reflected consistently
in minute, that is not good governance. Where elders quash every move
for innovation, for trying new things and experiencing the Spirit in
different ways, that is not good governance. But all of those roles,
and more, done rightly, are vital to good governance that allows our
organisations to run smoothly, effectively, and without damaging
regulatory or legal entanglements.
Good governance
is not antithetical to Quaker principles. Rigid, power-based
governance is – but even in non-Quaker organisations, good
governance is not entirely rigid and power-based. Good Quaker
governance is collaborative, caring, and nurturing. It involves
communication and understanding. It sets procedures that support us,
rather than constrain unnecessarily; it is not shy of constraining
where there is good reason, but it is also not slow to re-examine
these constraints to see if they are still valid.
Good governance,
including good trusteeship, uplifts our communities and allows
Friends to be free of continuous concern for tasks that do not need
the attention of everyone, but do need attention. Do not be scared of
governance – be determined to get it right.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Did you enjoy this post, or find it interesting, informative or stimulating? Do you want to keep seeing more of these posts? Please consider contributing to my Patreon. More information is available in the post announcing my use of Patreon.
Did you enjoy this post, or find it interesting, informative or stimulating? Do you want to keep seeing more of these posts? Please consider contributing to my Patreon. More information is available in the post announcing my use of Patreon.
