Last month we discussed what I call the "traditional board" which views the board and executive director as partners. The hardest task of the board in this model is maintaining a balance between rubber stamping the executive director's recommendations or, at the other end of the spectrum, trying to micromanage the staff. The latter is the executive director's job.

This month, let's look at the policy governance board. I find this title a little misleading because all boards, whatever their model, make policy and govern. However, in this usage it means the board governs through policies and delegates management to the executive director and his/her staff.

For success with this model, the organization must have adequate staff to meet its mission and priorities. This model gives the executive director authority to fulfill those ends as circumscribed by limits that the board articulates. The board speaks to the ED with one voice. There usually are no board standing committees with the exception of an audit committee and an occasional ad-hoc task force.

Policy governance boards, like all boards, must focus on ends (their mission and strategic goals) and honor the legal requirements for boards, such as providing a system of monitoring and evaluation of operations. They must be active, attend meetings, demand program outcome evaluation, avoid conflicts of interest, help with succession planning and be involved in advocacy and resource development.