Are committees
disappearing? Should they disappear? Last issue we brought attention to the
number of people "playing down if not outright denigrating the role of
what was once the quintessential heart of congregational life - the standing
committee."
We quoted authors like Edgar Stoesz, whose book we review in this issue: "Committees … kill more ideas by their cautious scrutiny than they generate." A local pastor, Marv Ziprick, told us: "They are called standing committees because they stand in the way of good ideas."
We received three responses.
Since meeting John Carver in the late 80's (when he was still affordable), being enthralled by his model, I have guided a few organizations through the conversion process to a Policy Governance model. Although Carver has strongly advocated for adoption of the whole model, my experience is that the principles do not play out the same way in every case. Which, actually, is hardly surprising.
It is appropriate - imperative, even - to always question our structures, which too quickly take on lives of their own, often to the detriment of the purpose they were created to serve. The article's quotes and comments about standing committees are true, but not necessarily all the time. I am now working in a small organization that moved to a Policy Governance model 5 yrs ago, and is now, thoughtfully and carefully, returning to having a few standing committees. The key, of course, is to remind ourselves of what purposes we are trying to achieve and what kind of structure (committee, task group, etc) is most suited to the job, and not to elevate the structure to an unquestionable status.
Larry Derkach
My perspective is currently from that of a United Church of Canada Presbytery standing committee - the Finance, Property and Development Committee. Our committee is able to give more detailed consideration to a matter than would be possible at either Presbytery Executive or Presbytery itself. We provide considered reports and, judging from the comments I have received, these are valued by both the Executive Committee and Presbytery.
I think the key thing is that the Committee realize, if another committee has said this should happen, that its role is to describe how it could happen (rather than debating whether it should or not). That's not always easy but, if you remember what your Committee's role is, you'll be able to fulfill your responsibility without killing creative new ideas.
Tom Forgrave, Chair
Finance, Property & Development Cte
Edmonton Presbytery
For about five years now I have been standing on my soap box telling all who will listen that we should eliminate committees. The biggest problem with committees is that they relieve individuals of responsibility for doing something. Someone has a good idea. Instead of running with it, they hand it off to a committee. Then they sit back and wait for six months. When nothing happens, they complain about the committee.
Having said all that, I have been part of committees that have been very effective in getting things done. Looking back, I note that some of the characteristics of those committees were similar to the characteristics we strive for in small groups - a common interest and support for each other. The Stewardship Team I am currently part of is like that. This group generates its own ideas and then acts on them.
I think we need balance. We need groups of people who manage the routine stuff - running the worship service, maintaining the building. We also need a culture where anyone can take an idea and run with it. In a prefect world, the creative folks will come up with an idea and generate some excitement around it. Then they will find some of us planners to help to carry it out. Just don't call this synergy a committee.
Linda Paddon
Congregational News April 2006 Vol. 12 No. 3