We tend to use accountability as a euphemism for blame when things go wrong. I believe in shared responsibility for innovation, which is why I favor more collaborative groups that encourage and support partnership between staff and volunteers. No matter how you slice them, committees are bureaucratic structures that are invested in preserving the status quo. Associations need to balance freedom and discipline in order to make innovation happen, and the ability to experiment with different ways of organizing knowledge work will be central to the long-term success of our organizations.

I also agree with the need to eliminate most association standing committees, but I disagree that joint board-staff committees are a better option. If the expertise is inside the association, why undermine staff/operational accountability by throwing a monkey wrench into the process where volunteers who do not have the special expertise are placed in positions of influence. That’s a waste of everyone’s time. What about delegating all operations to the CEO, and IF the CEO needs input from volunteers to assure relevant programming and services, the CEO may invite people with special skills as a member of those “operational committees” with the understanding that the committee is advisory in nature to the CEO. If operational committees are accountable to a volunteer source, it undermines the accountability for operational performance.