Effective Board Meetings--An Agenda Template

Here’s a suggested meeting agenda format for Boards, used by the archdiocese of Mobile, Al. and created by its former Vicar of Education, Dr. Thomas Doyle. In my experience, Boards that hold to this format will conduct lively, productive Board meetings and will support the various relationships between its members and the school principal in a healthy, dynamic partnership.

I. Routine Matters:

a.     Prayer

b.     Roll call

c.      Approval of minutes from last meeting

       These are self-explanatory, except for one point: minutes are not typically narratives of all the discussion that take place at a Board meeting, but focus rather on “actions” taken by the Board. Since minutes of the Board are technically public documents, it’s unhelpful and sometimes destructive to catalog all discussions, some of which may end up being purely speculative on a single Board member’s part but alarming to segments of the school community without the context of the give and take discussions. Less is more in reporting Board minutes.

At the same time, everyone writes. There should no oral reports given at Board meetings--by pastors, principals, committees or anyone else--as people's memories often differ, and the discipline of writing things down helps clarify issues and pushes committees to submit their work prior to Board meetings, helping provide impetus for timely meetings and pre-planning.  Furthermore, when the Board votes for an item, the exact proposal should be in writing, so that no one misunderstands what they are voting on. 

II. Voting:

The “essence” of the Board’s work, acting as a whole, is to decide, not to talk.  If the Board is functioning well, one of the committees introduced an interim proposal at the last meeting to be voted upon this meeting (see V. below).  Voting items are thus at minimum two and sometimes three meetings “old” to the Board; there should never be a case where Board members don’t have at least a meeting in advance to consider the pros and cons of a position or are “surprised” by a voting matter that suddenly arises that night.

A proposal is made in writing (often, by the committee who worked on the proposal), someone proposes at vote, a second member “seconds” the vote, a brief discussion ensues, and then the vote is taken. 

If the committee has done its work, listened to concerns raised in the previous meeting, and included those concerns in its revised proposal, there should be a near consensus of the Board by the time there’s a vote.  If the Board still seems substantially divided in the brief discussion leading up to the vote, it’s the prerogative of the Board president to table the voting, ask the committee to re-consider its proposal in light of the dissenting views and re-propose at the next meeting.  As a general rule, Boards should operate out of a consensus model, and if everyone is following this agenda process, near consensus is usually possible.

III. New Business of the Board:

The executive committee, by virtue of its executive meeting a couple weeks before the Board meeting, assigns a new task to a committee of the Board.  This “new task” has two elements:

First, it asks a specific committee to answer a specific question and report back to the Board in an interim report. For example, if there is an adjacent ten acre plot to the school that the school is considering leasing or purchasing, the executive committee doesn’t tell its building and grounds committee to “study the issue”, but instead asks it to compare facilities of area competitor schools and list out possible uses for the land. It might also commission the finance committee to discuss actual costs of purchase or lease with the owner of that property and lay out various financial means to do so. Executive committees think.

Second, the committee is given a timetable of when to report back its findings to the Board. Typically, it might assign an "interim" report for the next meeting, with "final report" for the meeting after next. 

Ultimately, since  the Board’s work is to decide, not talk, the committee's work is geared toward an actionable item--something the Board will vote upon.  If at some future date the executive committee concludes there will be no actionable piece, it drops the issue. But at this point in the meeting, the executive Board is merely assigning a future task of its committees and making sure everyone understands that task. 

IV. Administrative Reports:

Here the principal (at minimum) and the person in charge of finance (recommended), file written reports to the Board, sharing with them issues that help the Board understand the pulse of the school.  Administrators share. A principal might share significant events which have occurred or which will occur; the finance person might share the income/expense ledger, noting abnormalities, strengths or weaknesses. As with all Board work, these are in writing, but the Board may ask questions or have comments to make about the written reports.

V. Interim Reports/Proposals from Committees:

Typically, a committee’s work takes two meetings before it proposes an actionable item for vote. Here the committees report work in process and what their findings are to the Board.  This interim report should be in writing, and this is the point at the Board meeting where the most “discussing” should take place.

One of the tasks of the vice-president of the Board in the archdiocese of Mobile’s model was to call committee chairs at least two weeks before the meeting and remind them of their task and check in with them. Committees work. The key to successful Boards are successful committees who do timely work, fulfilling the specific task assigned them by the executive team. This is also where less effective Boards break down.

VI. Proposals for Future Board work:

Board members at large are asked if they have issues they’d like the Board to consider in the future. This portion of the meeting is more to simply “list” these issues rather than talk about them. The executive committee, at its next meeting, will decide whether this topic or proposal is in fact assigned to a committee for the purpose of becoming an actionable item of the Board.

Agendas govern. If a Board member wants to talk about something, here’s where he or she speaks. But it’s aimed at a future Board action to take, not an opportunity to wax on about a pet issue. And whether it gets any traction for a future Board action will depend on the executive committee, meeting apart from the Board at its regular meeting.

VII. Closing prayer:

How long should such a meeting take that follows this agenda? When committees are doing good work and everyone knows the tasks and assignments in front of them, healthy Board meetings are typically between 60-90 minutes long. Why? Because Boards decide, while committees work.  Most of the detail work that takes time is done in committees, not at the Board level. The Board then hears what the committees propose and then votes.

Furthermore, agendas govern. If something isn't on the agenda, it can be proposed to be placed there in VI. above for next time, but the current meeting is not the time to discuss the issue. Not only does the Board avoid the trap of taking on the most emotional issue of the day, it cuts down on the length of Board meetings considerably in a way that respects people's time. 

I was principal and president of a school that followed this format for nineteen years. It works well and keeps all the relationships in proper perspective. I recommend it highly.

Six Commandments for Effective Catholic School Boards

Dr. Thomas Doyle was Vicar of Catholic Education for the Archdiocese of Mobile for over twenty years and then became the Academic Director of Notre Dame’s Alliance for Catholic Education. During the time he was Vicar, he was a highly sought after speaker on how to create and sustain effective Catholic school boards, asked to speak in dioceses all around the country.

Tom gave so many talks on best practices for Catholic school boards, in fact, that he was able to summarize his talk into six simple “commandments.” Simple as they are, my experience is that if Boards commit to these six commandments, they become highly effective instruments in advancing the mission of the school and powerful partners with the principal in leading and guiding the school.  Here they are, with a brief explanation.

Boards Decide—The primary work of the Board is to make decisions—not to talk. Issues have been raised in previous meetings, they’ve been assigned to committees, committees have reported back to the Board, and now the Board either accepts, rejects of amends the recommendation of the committee.  A “committee of the whole” is rarely a good instrument for discussing or implementing an idea, as some personalities dominate, and others feel intimidated or marginalized.  There’s no reason meetings should last beyond ninety minutes if Boards hold to this principle.

Committees Work—Standing committees do the “work” of the Board. The finance committee recommends the increase in salaries, tuition and budget for the following year, and if they do their homework, there’s a lot of detail work to be done, examining current year income and expenses, noting 3-5 year trends, scrutinizing successful and unsuccessful revenue streams. Building and grounds committees might do annual or semi-annual inspections of the school and note areas that need cosmetic improvements or more serious issues that jeopardize student safety. Marketing committees could help the school create recruiting plans for the upcoming year. Education committees might review testing data and make recommendations, with the principal, for new curricular programs.  Each of these committees bring their recommendations to the Board as a whole, who then votes either to accept or reject them.  The key to successful Boards is active committees which have been assigned meaningful work by the executive committee.

Agendas Govern—The Board meeting is directed by an agenda, and if it’s not on the agenda, it’s not discussed at that meeting. Is there a Board member who is hot-fired on the cause for something and wants to speak out about it? Then the executive committee decides whether his issue goes on the agenda for next month.  Sticking to this discipline helps Boards stay future oriented and keeps them from being dragged into whatever the emotional issue of the day is. It also keeps the principal from being blind-sided by random complaints or concerns of a Board member.

Executive Committees Think—The executive committee of the Board (typically, the president, vice-president, secretary and treasurer, with the principal) has two primary functions: To create an agenda for the meeting, deciding on which matters the Board will take up (and which ones they won’t), and also, to assign tasks to the committees, establishing the parameters of the committee’s work and a time-table for presenting interim and final reports to the Board.

So, for example, in our school, the city has ten acres of land adjacent to us and has recently offered to lease it to us at very favorable rates. How might the executive team consider such an offer? They could assign part of the work to the building and grounds committee, asking it to study competitor schools and discuss what we lack in comparison, asking them to prepare an interim report in two months time. It could ask the finance committee to review costs for mowing and landscaping if the school wanted to secure the lease before any capital project in two months time. It could ask the marketing and admissions committee to propose school improvements, using this land, that maximized the school’s position in the marketplace, again to report in two months. Imagine how exciting this Board meeting would be, as each of these committees reported? And at the next executive committee meeting, it could decide on the next set of tasks, thinking through the next steps. 

Principals Share—Every board meeting, principals should inform the Board of issues at the school—successes, issues of concern, new faculty, new programs, ideas of the faculty and staff—all those things that help the Board understand the life of the school through the principal’s eyes.

Everyone Writes—A funny thing about our memories: we all remember differently. That’s why one of the cardinal rules of good board practice is no oral reports. Committees write down their findings. Principals write down how they’re doing. The secretary records the minutes, which are then voted as “acceptable” in the next meeting. What if a committee doesn’t have a written report that month? Their work and all discussion is tabled for the next meeting.

Boards which hold to these "commandments" will encourage active engagement of all its members and will build a supportive, visionary team that nicely complements the day to day responsibilities of the school principal. Together, we can do magnificent, important work that changes kids' lives!

The "Catholic" in Catholic High Schools

The summer of my first year as headmaster of Pope John Paul II High School, I wrote a letter to parents, introducing myself, and attached a simple card, asking parents to tell me what was best about our school in their eyes, and also, their top concern. When the results came back, the #1 area of concern was “We’re not Catholic enough.” The #2 concern? “We’re ­too Catholic.”

Those results, of course, reflect a polarization in our contemporary Church of what it means to be “Catholic,” ranging from those who believe we should be hosting daily Marian devotions, to those who are more interested in social justice initiatives, to Catholics who don’t really care deeply either way. The results also reflected the estrangement of our non-Catholic families (40% of our school). How then, do we Catholic high school principals navigate these divides?

I think there are several wrong approaches.

The first wrong approach is to steer the school to a “lowest common denominator” Catholicism that emphasizes its “Christianity,” while de-emphasizing its more distinctively “Catholic” elements: Less frequent masses, less Marian devotions, less emphasis on the liturgical season and celebrations of that season, a singular emphasis on Scripture vs. a broader inclusion of the writings of the saints, popes, or doctors of the Church.  The problem with this approach is that it reduces Catholicism to a banal, uninteresting faith that very few students find attractive. It’s the weirdly odd people, celebrations and liturgical practices that give Catholicism so much flavor, so much “style,” and makes the faith memorable, distinctive and appealing to our students. 

When I came to JPII, for example, we had an Ash Wednesday mass, but no Mardi Gras celebration. Growing up in Mobile, Al (site of the first Mardi Gras celebrations--New Orleans take note), this was unacceptable to me, so now, as a small thing, students know that at some point during Fat Tuesday, I will come to their classrooms with bags of candy and throw candy at them. Lest students think our namesake Pope John Paul II was all work and no fun, we acquired the pope’s ski jacket as a gift from the Vatican, and put up a display in our hallway, emphasizing that JPII was not only a pope, but a skier, kayaker, poet, soccer player, linguist, and playwright. The ancient Catholic practice of veneration of relics supports this. Our  six “Houses,” the very framework of our students’ social life, are named after six popes, and once/year, the lives of each pope is celebrated, with students in those houses able to take a “dress down” day.  We built an outdoor “Stations of the Cross” path in adjacent woods, encouraging our students to pray the “Via Crucis.” 

I believe one of the real problems for our Church in the intermediate aftermath of Vatican II was that many Catholics became embarrassed by our more unusual celebrations and moved away from them, unwittingly reducing our faith to something that was trite and boring. We should do the opposite in our schools!

The second wrong approach, in my opinion, is to attempt to walk a middle path between liberal and conservative Catholicism and keep careful “score” that our schools are not veering off into either direction. I believe this is wrong-headed in that is continues to measure our Catholicism with the wrong metric.  “Liberal” and “Conservative” are political labels that carry a lot of baggage, and if that is the lens through which we allow ourselves to be understood, we’re likely to carry those bags with us and encourage those polarities to fester.  Instead, “orthodoxy” should be that lens, and that means, I think, embracing the FULL tradition and history of liturgical practices, past and present. 

Many Catholics have far too narrow a vision of their faith, often a function of their preference, upbringing and sensibilities. But one of the beauties of Catholicism is its all-inclusiveness of a variety of traditions, and we should be open to all of them! So, for example, during our weekly Masses, we want to expose kids not only to contemporary praise worship, but also to the ancient songs, chants and hymns of our tradition. The way we do this is alternate music groups every other Mass, with our choral program leading one week, singing the more traditional hymns, and a student led folk group leading us the next week, singing more contemporary music. We once hosted a Tridentine Mass for our student body, but we’ve also hosted a youth rally which culminated in a Christian rock musician, Matt Maher, leading the music for mass--two entirely different experiences!  We’ll do Eucharistic adoration once or twice a year, but we also have a strong service requirement, where kids are asked to work with the under-privileged. We frequently recite the Our Father and Hail Mary as part of our common life together, but we also encourage students to pray contemporaneously.  Quotes from scripture, the saints, various popes, decorate our hallways. We’re not trying to "balance" the various polarities of our faith as if they're in competition with each other. We’re doing these things in faithfulness to the "both-and-ness" of our wonderfully diverse tradition, hoping that students see and experience the fullness of what it means to be Catholic. 

I think, too, we need to be much more imaginative and bold in defining the mission of our schools and discussing this mission with others. John Paul II, Benedict and Francis have each articulated the faith in powerful, evangelical ways that are deeply appealing to youth and to their parents, regardless of where they stand on the theological spectrum and regardless of church affiliation. Here are three examples:

JPII once told youth:  “It is Jesus who stirs in you the desire to do something great with your lives, the will to follow an ideal, the refusal to allow yourselves to be ground down by mediocrity, the courage to commit yourselves humbly and patiently to improving yourselves and society, making the world more human and more fraternal.”

Benedict once said: “Young people, the world promises you comfort, but you were not made for comfort.  You were made for greatness!”

And Francis, recently, speaking to young people about marriage, had this to say: "Today, there are those who say that marriage is out of fashion... They say that it is not worth making a life-long commitment, making a definitive decision, ‘for ever’, because we do not know what tomorrow will bring. I ask you, instead, to be revolutionaries, I ask you to swim against the tide; yes, I am asking you to rebel against this culture that sees everything as temporary and that ultimately believes you are incapable of responsibility, that believes you are incapable of true love."

This way of talking about the Catholic faith, challenging young people to be cultural revolutionaries, to strive for holiness and seek greatness for their lives, cuts across religious divides and digs down to the heart of the gospel message. The gospels have the power to change lives! When we proclaim them boldly and creatively, we too, speak powerfully of our Catholic mission.

May we have the vision and confidence to so lead our schools!

Promoting Philanthropy in Catholic Schools

In development parlance, “fund-raising” is when we sell something to someone for the purpose of raising money—bake sales, car-washes, raffles and tickets for the annual dinner Gala, for example—and is therefore not tax deductible.  “Philanthropy” refers to straight up giving, either for unrestricted or restricted purposes, and is tax-deductible.

We in Catholic schools are excellent fund-raisers, but we are less adept in encouraging philanthropy. No doubt there are many reasons for this: the fact that we are parish schools wedded to a tithing model, such  that philanthropic appeals come primarily through the Church and not the school, the fact that we haven’t invested in development professionals, and the more generalized fact that we are short on administrative infrastructure across the board, meaning that principals don’t have time to "cultivate donors."  I think, too, there’s a general feeling that we already ask families to stretch to pay our tuitions, so we worry that asking for “more” seems to under-appreciate their commitment and make those unable to give feel inadequate. 

Even to the extent these are legitimate, I think it’s foolish of us to not focus more on improving philanthropic giving.  Let me address each of the concerns:

Yes, we ask for our parishioners to tithe, but some are more inclined to give generously to the school their children or grandchildren attend than to the parish they belong to or the priest that they are grumpy with. It doesn’t “take away” anything from the parish collections if philanthropists give to the parish school, since ultimately, the parish school’s money and the parish’s money are the same.  And in the case that the child’s family is from a different parish, even if a school appeal causes some discernible decrease in that other parish’s tithe, I’d argue the parish with the school is probably spending a lot more to support that school than whatever subsidy the second parish pays (once insurance, yard work, janitorial help, professional staffing and other “hidden” costs are factored in).

Yes, our Catholic schools are understaffed (especially our elementary schools—I have suggested ways to address this here), which limits how much philanthropic work our principals can do. But even with that, there are simple appeals that end up taking much less time (and raising more money) than the fund-raisers we do through-out the year. 

• At minimum, we should send out an “annual fund appeal” letter from a principal or deeply respected teacher in our school, with an envelope attached, during the November-December time frame.
• We should allow families to “check a box” to sponsor a second child’s tuition (or 50%, or 25%) whenever they register for next year, to “make the gift of Catholic education available for someone else.”
• At the annual gala, the principal of the school should make a brief public appeal on behalf of a few current (unnamed) families who are behind on tuition payments because of a job loss, or a divorce, or some unexpected event.  All of us have families that entered into tuition contracts with us in good faith, but because of an unforeseen event, are no longer able to meet their obligations. Most of us write these off, but we have families more than willing to help if they know their donations are going directly to these families and not to the “black hole” of administration.  I try to give just enough specifics about these families to inspire generosity without violating their confidentiality. We typically raise $15-25K in the couple of minutes it takes for me to make these appeals. Once I receive their gift, I call the family with the good news that an anonymous "angel" has given us money to support them, and ask them to send me a thank you letter, which I then pass on to the donor. 
• On-line giving is more prominent now than it was even three years ago, and is particularly used by our younger alumni. Putting a link on the web page is easy, and providing for this link in an email campaign in conjunction with the annual fund letter is a very efficient appeal.
• Ask your parish to include a “special collection” for the purpose of supporting the parish school during Catholic schools week or at some other appropriate time each year. Monies raised could either relieve the Church of that month’s allocation to the school, or could be used directly by the school itself.
• I believe that once a year during Sunday Masses, similar to what we do with the annual diocesan appeal, the pastor should appeal to his parishioners to make provisions for the Church or the school (again, it’s the same entity) in their will. Most families are incapable of making a transformative gift during their lifetime. But with a simple codicil in their will, they can leave their house, for example, (or 50%, or 33%, or 25% of it) to the school. Often parents create their wills when their children are very young, so they are concerned about providing for them and thus make them sole beneficiaries, but 20-30 years later, their children may be quite successful, so re-allocating a portion of their will to the Church is not unthinkable. There are likely lawyers and financial planners who would assist families in making a planned gift, gratis, as a means of contributing their services to Catholic schools.

Finally, as to the concern that asking parents for philanthropic gifts some how under-values the commitment they’re making with their tuitions, I think we simply need to get beyond that concern. For one, independent schools charge twice, three times or four times as much tuition as we do and ask their families (some, rather aggressively) to give to annual funds every year. Second, strapped families are not obligated to give if asked, and in fact, have other avenues to give, if inclined, through volunteer service. Third, we have to stop basing our decisions on the impact it might have on our least wealthy families! That formula simply won’t work for us over the long term because it subsidizes the wealthier families who can afford to give more, thus undercutting our ability to help those who can't more directly. It's the same with setting tuitions: we stress over whether our poorer families can absorb tuition increases of 3%, 4%, 5% or 6%,  but the truth is, our tuitions are already too high for these families, and whether we raise tuitions an extra 50, 100 or 150 dollars for the year doesn't matter nearly as much as whether we can give them $2,000 or $3,00o in direct financial aid. But we can't give that kind of aid unless we are maximizing revenue from those who can pay more. 

The mission of our schools is an extraordinary one. We should have no issues in asking people to support this mission in an extraordinary way.