Tesse Akpeki pays tribute to the Acevo Governance Commission but warns against reinventing the wheel.

As a governance consultant, improving governance effectiveness is close to my heart, which helps with the high emotions I have to address at times, like the kicking and screaming trustee who does not want to leave the board, and would prefer to continue service into perpetuity.

The passionate debate at the launch of Realising the potential of governance, and the high level of sector interest, illustrates the need and desire for better governance effectiveness on charity boards.  Funders or commissioners are explicitly encouraged to consider the strength of an organisation’s governance as part of their assessment process.  

One of the report’s recommendations is that trustees should consider defined term limits.  I told the audience about my kicking and screaming trustees and they knowingly laughed.

Derek Twine, former chief executive of the Scouts and chair of the Acevo governance commission, said a high number of respondents surveyed for the purposes of the report highlighted this problem too.

It’s a delicate issue which has kept me awake at night.  I call it the “till death do us part” syndrome. In fact some charities proudly share this as their response to succession planning!
I use my heart and my head at times such as these. My heart empathises with board members who have invested time and energy in a cause and  feel so attached and invested.  But, I also need to keep a strong head, and know that an effective board needs fresh thinking and impetus. It’s essential that charities remember they are there to fulfil their charitable purpose and need the best governance for this.

So defined term limits for trustees is for me one of the key recommendations in the Acevo report. The report also focuses on:
(i)    Appraisal and accountability – holding the chief executive and executive team to account by utilising regular appraisal processes for the chief executive, the board of trustees and the chair
(ii)    Understanding roles and responsibilities and the importance of leadership in establishing organisational culture and generating continuous improvement, and
(iii)    Effective board management and using written procedures to address ‘boundary disputes’ where they occur.

An interesting observation is that with no clear and consistent definition of the role of the chair of a charity, the chairing role is viewed differently across the sector, often resulting in role ambiguity.  Positively, the Governance Commission indicates that more organisations are actively working to address low levels of diversity on their boards.

Suggestions include:

• Providing appropriate training and professional development based in up-to-date written guidance, supported by reasonable budgets to increase trustee confidence and understanding of the range and complexity of risks that a modern charity can face.   
• Implementing defined term limits, staggered to ensure an appropriate rate of turnover to refresh and renew the board.  Smaller or locally-focused charities are advised to include a provision for the reappointment of trustees at the end of their terms if a suitable replacement cannot be found.

There are a plethora of governance tools available, and while the Acevo Governance Commission report is a welcome addition to the effectiveness toolkit, to avoid the reinvention of the wheel, I would like to see more charities drawing on existing resources, such as Governance magazine, the Code of Good Governance and NCVO’s guidance on codes of conduct.