Effective governance stops good people creating bad precedents

Like many of you, I suspect, I’ve been watching the political commentary around Andy Burnham with a genuine sense of helplessness. There is a growing narrative that he will simply stroll into Number 10 unchallenged, probably stopping only to wave politely (smile triumphantly?) at the cameras on the way in. Most are calling it “inevitable”.

But the word “inevitable” makes me very nervous.

It reminded me of a charity board I once worked with where the chair unexpectedly announced that he had decided to step down in an email to the board. Fair enough. But in the same email he also told the board who he had chosen as his successor. Fait accompli! Which is much less fair enough!

Because there was a massive snag: he didn’t actually have the power to do it. Nowhere could I find the clause in the governing documents that said: “The chair may appoint their successor willy-nilly without it going to a vote.”

There’s a reason why this is the case. In well-governed charities, a chair cannot simply hand over the metaphorical keys like a retiring pub landlord to their favourite punter. Yes, they can express a preference. Yes, they can encourage someone to stand. What they cannot do is appoint them: that responsibility belongs to the whole board.

You would have thought at least one trustee would have asked the question: “Sorry… but are you actually allowed to do that?” But not one trustee questioned it. The announcement was met with resounding radio silence.

It was a bit like watching someone stroll through airport security carrying a suitcase labelled “Definitely Not Suspicious” and nobody asking to look inside.

In my experience this is how poor governance creeps in. It is rarely accompanied by flashing lights and dramatic scandals, more often with polite nodding, awkward smiles and an unspoken belief that someone else must have checked the rules.

But here’s the thing. Governance is not about trusting good people. It is about making sure good people don’t accidentally create bad precedents or contravene legal powers.

The Charity Commission expects trustees to exercise independent judgement. Decisions should be collective, transparent and made in accordance with the charity’s governing document, not arbitrarily decided by the chair on a whim.

One trustee could simply have said: “I think she’d make an excellent chair. Shall we follow the process and elect her properly?” Instead, the board quietly handed away one of its most important responsibilities.

It seems to me that politics has much the same problem. Democracies rely on contest, scrutiny and accountability where leaders are tested through challenge – especially if they want to hold the most senior post in government.

The moment we decide someone is “inevitable”, we risk switching off the very mechanisms designed to protect our democracy.

Charities are no different. A board where nobody ever asks difficult questions isn’t harmonious, it’s nodding off on the job. It’s hoping someone else will ask the question and then assuming because no one asked it’s all OK.

Because the governing documents of the Labour Party allow it, we are yet again* highly likely to be stuck with a person in Number 10 who got the job both untested and uncontested – and further, who most of the rest of us didn’t get a chance to vote for (or against!).

Luckily, in our organisations we don’t have to be stuck with a chair that the rest of the board didn’t get a vote on if we follow our rules.

*It’s happened under other governing parties too, of course.

This article was originally published on the Third Sector website, take a look here.