Board member responsibilities

As we explore the concept of defining board member responsibilities, we invite you to engage in thoughtful reflection and discussion.

Defining Board Member Responsibilities

Pat introduced the idea that a good metaphor for modern ministry directors might be Old Testament town elders—not the church elders we find throughout the New Testament but credible adults who spoke into the major decisions and challenges that confronted the community. The position may or may not have been formal, but it was almost always based on demonstrated character, wisdom, experience, and spiritual maturity.

1. How do you feel about this metaphor? Does it work for you? What questions does it bring to your mind? *

2. There are many titles for nonprofit board members: directors, trustees, fiduciaries. All of these titles convey the importance of the position. Do you use a particular title like these mentioned for your particular board members? If so, what’s the title? *

3. Regardless of the title, a major dimension of the role is that of a steward. Pat reminded us that a “person accepting the office or position of trustee also accepts the duty to act primarily for another’s benefit with good faith, candor, and care.” Do you agree with this observation? Is there anything missing that you would add to this definition? *

Your answers are only visible to you.

4. Three key duties were suggested. Note that in some countries these are considered legal responsibilities; in others, they’re seen in a less formal light, more like ethical obligations.

Duty of Care defines the level of competence and commitment expected of a board member. It is generally defined as the care any ordinary person would exercise in this position in a similar circumstance (e.g., faithfully attending board meetings)
Duty of Loyalty deals with the expectation that a director (and corporate officers) will always put the interest of the organisation before personal interests.

It was suggested that a typical best practice among nonprofits is the annual signing of a conflict of interest statement by each director.

Duty of Obedience is the requirement that board members (and officers) act in accordance with the organisationʼs policies, articles of incorporation, bylaws and foundational statements and the laws of the land. This might be the most common expectation found in boards around the world.
A fourth responsibility was suggested: the Duty of Personal Engagement. This responsibility goes beyond merely “showing up“ for board meetings. It is the over-and-above part of the job. In many respects, this category is an extension of duty of care. We highlight it to address the passivity and/or complacency we see in some board members who appear to feel their presence is a sufficient contribution to the mission. The duty of personal engagement represents the willingness to speak candidly, to contribute to the effort and discussions that go into board decisions, to give (time, effort, finances) as able, to pray for the ministry, and to take the initiative in whatever effort the board is pursuing.

Do you agree the ideas expressed in these four categories of duties are relevant and applicable for ministry boards, even if labeled with different terminology? If not, why not? How could this ideas be strengthened to better apply?