BOARDMANSHIP.... Park and Recreation Boards Democracy at Work By Dr. Ted Flickinger, CAE IAPD Executive Director and Managing Editor

Thousands of men and women in American communities serve on park and recreation boards, commissions, councils and committees. This is democracy at its very best. It reveals a vitality of social conscience and a willingness to accept community responsibility. Citizen boards and commissions keep democracy green at the roots, and our park and recreation agencies are better run because citizens volunteer their time and expertise.

Illinois park boards serve as a model for the rest of the country. Illinois has one of the best local park and recreation systems in the nation because of the independent special park, forest preserve and conservation district system.

Illinois park districts have a proud history

These parks were first established with the south, west and Lincoln Park Districts in 1869, which ultimately became the Chicago Park District. The first general Act permitting formation of park districts came in 1893 with the Peoria Pleasure Driveway Park District being the first in 1896, followed by Springfield in 1900, Pekin in 1902, and Winnetka in 1904. Illinois has a proud history of preserving open spaces and natural areas and developing innovative recreation sites and services.

The strength of the Illinois system lies both in the diversity and in the wide range of the combined experience, expertise, and viewpoints of citizen leaders who serve on the park and recreation boards. Citizens make special contributions in the areas of public policy, public interpretation, education and financial support. The professional director and staff contribute their technical knowledge, skills and experience. The combined efforts make the park and recreation system responsive to citizens' needs and interests.

The relationship between the chief executive and board is vital to smooth operations

The board is the key to the advancement of the park and recreation system. It is its leadership and commitment that enables the professional director and staff to operate the agency effectively and provide the programs, facilities, and services for the constituents.

By far the most important relationship board members have is with their chief executive. Board members should always keep in mind that of all the vital functions of the board, none is more important to the success of the district than the recruitment and selection of the chief executive. He, or she, more than any other one factor, determines the agency's performance, effectiveness of staff, efficiency of operation, and ultimately the quality of board membership and service.

In sizing up the qualifications of chief executive candidates, objectiveness is absolutely imperative. Too much is at stake to let seniority, low salary, personal loyalties or politics interfere with securing the best qualified person for the job. Always remember, it is much easier to hire an effective chief executive than it is to dismiss an ineffective one.

The relationship between the board and the chief executive is a partnership for which both are responsible. Like all such intimate human relationships, this one is filled with points of possible friction and difficulties. Just as nobody can write a prescription which would make all marriages happy, there is no universally successful board/chief executive partnership.

We have so many variations in the degree and character of the relationship — many of them very undesirable. On the one hand we find the board president running the agency, and at the other extreme, we find each commissioner trying to dictate policy.

The same may be said for the chief executive who thinks the less his or her board knows about what is going on in the agency, the better he or she will get along.

At another extreme is the park board which makes a figurehead of the chief executive and then runs the district itself. Certainly the ideal situation lies midway between these extremes where the board consults with the chief executive and establishes policies by which the agency operates, and the chief executive administers these policies and reports to and advises the board of their effectiveness or need for modification.

A first essential is to realize that it is a partnership. The board selects the chief executive, sets the conditions of his work and, if necessary, replaces him. This kind of ultimate authority has a profound influence on the relationship and partnership.

But the executive should have complete authority in operating the agency. At the very minimum, he deserves the respect accorded to his position as the head of the agency. Both must understand how each of the two parties complements the other. They are mutually supporting roles. The board is corporate and acts only on the basis of group discussion and decision. In its dealings with the executive, as in all matters dealing with the staff, the board must act as a unit. No individual board member has any legal authority to deal with the executive on an individual basis, and each board member is obligated to uphold all adopted board policies, whether or not he voted for them.

The board is part-time. The executive is full-time. The executive should be a professional and competent expert. He is identified with the agency and, typically, earns his livelihood from it. His work is a central focus of his life. The board, though always in existence, can call only the part-time services of its members.

The board is typically made up of people who are non-experts in the program field. Although they often possess special knowledge in matters which relate to its work, they represent the community and, as such, serve as "watchdogs", helping to insure high standards of performance and quality service.

Putting goals and responsibilities in writing improves relationship and communication

The building of the partnership between the board and chief executive begins with the establishment of a clear cut job description which prescribes the chief executive's duties, responsibilities, and requirements in writing. Contrary to what some board members and executives seem to think, putting responsibilities in writing improves their working relationship because it clarifies expectations and improves communication. If your chief executive is to provide vigorous leadership he must know, among other things:

• The board's plans, goals and objectives for the agency (with chief executive input)
• How the goals and objectives translate into his duties and responsibilities
• What the board's functions are
• How the board will evaluate his work performance
• How he will be rewarded — salary schedule, fringe benefits, etc.

The lines of authority and responsibility of both the board and the chief executive must be clearly defined and both must understand where their responsibilities and authorities are joined and where they are completely separate.

If the agency is to be successful there must be a good relationship among the board, chief executive and staff. The board must reward the chief executive and praise his accomplishments. In turn, the chief executive must recognize that board members are volunteers who give untold hours to the park and recreation field.

Day by day, the number of volunteers decreases in this country. Volunteers represent the best in America. Stop and think. Do we remember to say thanks to our volunteer board members? Thanks for the golf course or recreation center. Thanks for using your station wagon to transport kids to a ball game. Thanks for hugging the participants of the Special Olympics.

Does the media recognize all board members' efforts? Would the professionals make it a point to tell them that they did a good job? It frightens me to think what we would do without them.

Board members represent democracy at work.