Charities fill their boards with governance experts at their peril, says Robert Ashton.
Charity governance has thrust itself upon me this week. Or rather, I have been quizzed in depth by those thinking I might be able to answer at least some of their governance prayers. The week started with an unexpected invitation to become patron of a regional charity. It ended with a well-structured, but informally delivered interview by a national organisation considering me as a potential trustee.
Both experiences were flattering and both made me think. Moreover, both forced me to be brutally honest and explain how I see these respective roles. Too many people get confused in my view about where the boundaries lie between trustees and the team. And too many patrons are invited for their network and contacts, yet fail ever to commit to more than a brief, rousing speech at each year's AGM.
Add the urgent need for all charities to become more businesslike and generate income, rather than seek grants, and the potential for governance confusion grows. I still hear trustees say that they must seek Charity Commission clarification that it's OK to embark on the social enterprise journey. They should be shot; in many cases it's as stupid as ringing head office for permission to escape a burning building. Yes, you are knocking off early, but surely survival is better than a slow and painful death?
As I questioned the motives for inviting me to become a patron, a need became clear. The organisation has charity shops, some income, but with a very lean team and plenty going on. Grant income is declining, but there's no immediate need to panic.
They need help to develop income generation and a professional fundraiser had suggested recruiting a patron who knew social enterprise, as well as the local great and good.
But what they need in my view is not a light-touch big cheese, but a streetwise pro bono consultant. They need to wind up income generation quickly, to the level they can afford a new team member to grow it on. This is not what patrons do and so I have encouraged them to re-phrase the question. Yes, a patron will be useful, but not until things start to move.
The second, more formal, process made me painfully aware that trustees fall into two distinct camps. Successful boards need some of each and never, ever all of the same. I was asked how I felt about monitoring risk registers and reviewing policies. My answer was, 'please don't ever ask me to do that!' This perhaps cooked my goose, but at least it avoided any misunderstanding. I do strategy, visioning, challenging and stretching boundaries. Others do policies, compliance and rulebooks.
Both kinds of trustees are needed if the debate is to be robust and the organisation both innovative and secure. To find trustees with a passion for both is probably impossible and to compromise is to risk opportunity for the security of more of the same. Except as we all know, more of the same no longer delivers results as the world has changed.
I'm going to start categorising the trustees I meet and see just how many fall clearly into one camp or the other. My suspicion is that most are governance-focused, perhaps understandably. Yet surely good governance is as much about securing the future as protecting the past? What do you think?
