Because the membership (acting as a body) has the initial authority in AFS—that is, its authority is the beginning of any further assignment (delegation)—it has the right to make all AFS decisions. But that would be unworkable and even foolish—first, large groups are unwieldy; second, there’s not enough time; and third, specific persons have the needed expertise and can commit the time. However, the board cannot escape being the ultimate authority. The common way most boards exercise that kind of “sum it all up” authority is by approvals, like approving a budget, a program plan, a hiring, etc. 

But that’s not the best way. The best way is for the board to exercise initial authority, rather than the usual after-the-fact authority. An example: When you hire someone to mow your lawn, it’s better to say what you want cut, how clean it must be left, and what is not to be done (like running over the flowers or leaving clippings on the sidewalk). You then judge against those criteria when the job is finished. That method beats following the employee around saying “do this,” “do that,” and “don’t do” something else. Humans like having control over their own jobs (that isn’t possible in total, but we should get as close to autonomy as we can).

So it is with a board controlling an organization or a membership controlling a board. Give maximum authority, short of giving away the shop. This seems a simple point, but school boards, city councils, and nonprofit boards do a lot of that bit-by-bit control. It’s wasteful of delagates’ talent and clutters board time with trivia (ever watched a school board, city council, or county commissioners?). That point I made with boards delegating to a CEO, but it also applies as a membership (like that of AFS) sets up the accountability of the board.

However, but to save the membership from details while assuring it maintains overall control, we must know which decisions the membership actually does need to make, and how the membership can best hold its delegates accountable. (This simultaneously avoids both rubber stamping and trivia.) The framework that enables us to do this (a) separates membership decisions from delegates’ decisions based on size of issues (as in larger and smaller) and (a) conceives of membership decisions in one of two categories, let’s call them ‘A’ and ‘B’ for now. More on those later.

A word about where this is all headed as it regards the AFS membership: (1) The membership would have very few decisions itself to make, but (2) those decisions would be sweepingly important, such as what difference AFS is to make in the world (that’s like purpose or mission, but phrased in a more powerful way), (3) what limits of ethics and prudence AFS and its delegates must observe, and the linkage by which the membership will grant authority to others (such as the board, officers, or other delegates). Next time I’ll bend your ears (eyes?) about the positions to which the membership can delegate much of the AFS work.

–John Carver, Atheism/Humanism blog: JohnJustThinking.com