As an association, the SAA, like many other associations, organizes its history by who was chair when the event took place. However, while that may be a useful way to recall the year of a specific event or other details, no chairperson is totally responsible for the vision or the history that takes place. The Board collectively is the ultimate leader and the chair facilitates the work the Board decides to do.
I have been very fortunate during these two years to work with fifteen very capable and dedicated people who have shared the responsibilities of leadership of the SAA. Together with Pam Brasch and our very qualified staff, we have scattered new seed, nurtured and cultivated others, and harvested seeds sown by Boards before us. But of all the achievements cited in the Membership Journal or at the General Membership meeting in Estes Park, probably the most important change was left unsaid and it is the one that, upon reflection, has fundamentally and structurally driven them all. While it didn’t seem earth-shattering then, two years ago, at the 1996 May meeting, the Board of Directors adopted policy governance.
Policy governance is a system of governance in which the Board has three goals in its job description: 1) to link with the membership, 2) to ensure the performance of the CEO, and 3) to write policies which fall into four organizational categories. Of these four, (the remaining three are described later), “Ends Policies” are the most important. The Board spends most of its meeting time formulating and evaluating Ends Policies, for they describe what results we want from our organization, for whom we want the results, and at what cost.
The Board links with the membership by keeping aware of the changes in the environment within and outside of our profession that affect the ability of the SAA to “develop conditions favorable for growth and excellence in Suzuki education for teachers, parents and students in the Americas” (our broadest ends policy). It uses the results of membership surveys, focus groups and networking with other boards of nonprofits within and outside of the music and early education field. Equally important is an awareness of the changing demographics and sociology of our hemisphere. By its adoption of policy governance and thus accepting linkage with the membership as its duty, the Board has committed itself to become educated about the issues that will influence the future of our profession in the next 5-10 years.
If the job of the Board is future-oriented, focusing on what results, for whom, and at what cost, it is the job of the CEO to decide the means by which the ends will be achieved; however, the Board sets the parameters within which the CEO can operate. These parameters are called “Executive Limitation Policies” and cover such topics as finances, budgeting, customer relations, employee relations, board support etc. Essentially, they are principles or values which say to the CEO (to quote John Carver, father of Policy Governance), “Go, until I say stop.” instead of “Stop, until I say go.” This frees the CEO to be as creative as possible within the boundaries established by the Board. For example, Policy 2.5 states, “The CEO shall not allow the assets to be unprotected, inadequately maintained or unnecessarily risked.” Each month the CEO reports on a specific number of policies, both Executive Limitations and Ends Policies. In the report is justification as to whether the CEO is in compliance with the policy and, if not, why. If the CEO is not in compliance or the board is not satisfied with the report, a board member may ask to have that item added to the agenda for discussion. If enough board members agree that the CEO interpreted the policy in ways that they did not intend, they may write further restrictions into the policy. On the other hand, the CEO may choose to purposely be in non-compliance because the policy did not foresee particular circumstances. In that case, the board may again request to have the topic added to the agenda and discuss whether the policy needs to be changed. As you can see, this type of governance, which explicitly states both expectations and limitations, makes for a very healthy dialogue between the board and the CEO. There are no hidden agendas on either side, and the criteria for evaluation of CEO is no longer such an elusive thing.
The remaining categories of policy are Board-Staff Linkage, which are policies about how power is delegated and monitored, and Board Governance, which are the rules or discipline by which the Board agrees to govern itself. For example, Policy 4.1 of Board Governance states, “The board will govern with an emphasis on (a) integrity and truthfulness in all methods and practices, (b) outward vision rather than internal preoccupation, (c) encouragement of diversity of viewpoints, (d) strategic leadership more than administrative detail, (e) clear distinction of board and chief executive roles, (f) collective rather than individual decisions, (g) future rather than past or present, and (h) proactivity rather than reactivity.”
The Board has been fully operational in the policy governance model for one year. It has taken a bit of retraining and practice to function according to these principles; however, with the completion of each meeting we seem to be continually amazed at how efficiently and effectively this tool helps us make our dreams a reality instead of spinning in circles. With these changes as to how the Board conducts its business and with the articulation of our mission/vision and values to guide us, the SAA membership can, with great anticipation and eagerness, be assured that our association is equipped to meet the millennium (now less than 21 weeks away!) with the tools we need to leave our world better than we found it.
