On 09/05/2014, Michael Maggs <Michael(a)maggs.name> wrote:
I’ll just pick up one point here. Giving committees
fully delegated powers
to take executive action under the direct supervision of the board would not
be consistent with any normal principle of charitable good governance. Not
only would it mean that trustees would once again become operational
programme line-managers, which is explicitly what we do not want to happen,
but it would remove whole swathes of the charity’s work from supervision by
the CE. No charity could work effectively within a structure that is partly
managed by the board and partly by the CE.
Odd, nobody has suggested delegating the executive's work to
committees. Delegating some current activities of the board (not the
executive!) who may have limited time to discuss and review detail, to
committees who can then report back with recommendations or make
choices between proposed options would be perfectly in line with best
practices for charity governance.
Examples would be:
1. a grants committee with authority to decline proposals against
pre-agreed criteria and recommend suitable ones to the board for
funding.
2. a friends committee that might assess and monitor communications or
events intended to benefit friends of the charity, and have delegated
powers to make choices between proposed options for using funds
already approved by the board.
3. a performance review committee that would assess reports of the
performance of the charity and make strategic recommendations back to
the board and may have some delegated authority to provide
(uncensored) feedback as part of the CE's annual performance review.
Fae
--
faewik(a)gmail.com
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae