Post 1 Boards as Employers: A Responsibility That Already Exists
Some police governance boards are already employers. This is not a new concept.
Boards routinely exercise employer authority when hiring, supporting, evaluating, and, when necessary, ending the employment of police chiefs and in the case of OPP detachment commanders providing feedback on performance or selection processes. In those situations, boards understand that decisions must be structured, fair, documented, and defensible.
That same employer responsibility exists when boards employ or direct staff who support governance operations, regardless of title, hours, or employment arrangement. In some cases the board is the legal employer. In other cases, such as where a municipality assigns an employee to support the board, the board is not the technical employer. Regardless of the relationship, boards still have a duty to be clear about direction, expectations, and feedback because outcomes depend on it.
Employer responsibility is not only a legal concept. It is also a governance practice.
What boards are often navigating
While boards generally recognize their employer role with respect to police leadership, that clarity does not always extend to governance support functions, including executive directors, administrators, or individuals performing board functions through municipal or contract arrangements.
In practice, this shows up in predictable ways:
- Roles evolve informally over time, especially in boards that grow quickly or take on new responsibilities.
- Expectations are assumed rather than articulated, often because “this is how we have always done it.”
- Direction is provided through multiple channels, creating mixed signals and tension.
- Supervision is unclear or concentrated in one person, often the chair, even when board decisions and expectations are collective.
- Feedback is provided inconsistently, which leaves staff and board members guessing.
A common dynamic is “silent dissatisfaction.” Board members may discuss concerns among themselves but never translate those concerns into clear feedback, a shared plan, or adjusted expectations. The work still gets done, but trust begins to erode quietly.
Why this matters
Boards would not accept ambiguity in how they oversee a chief’s performance. When similar ambiguity exists for governance support roles, the consequences are predictable and often avoidable:
- Misalignment becomes normal: Staff believe they are meeting expectations while board members feel they are not. This mismatch is rarely about competence. It is usually about clarity.
- Decisions become reactive: When expectations are unclear, the first real “performance conversation” often occurs when frustration is already high.
- Accountability becomes difficult to assess: Without clear outcomes and decision rights, boards cannot confidently evaluate performance or support improvement.
- Continuity is weakened: Informal arrangements are fragile. They do not hold up well through board turnover, changing leadership, or shifting priorities.
- Trust erodes: When feedback is delayed or inconsistent, staff may become cautious. Boards may then interpret caution as resistance. The cycle repeats.
Even where the board is not the technical employer, performance feedback and expectation management are still essential. Boards may not discipline or terminate municipal employees, but boards can and must manage the working relationship, clarify priorities, and communicate what is needed for the board to succeed.
Actions boards can take
Boards can strengthen outcomes quickly by addressing clarity, channels, and responsibility:
- Formally acknowledge the relationship types
Identify all governance support functions used by the board, including board-employed staff, municipal staff assigned to the board, and contract supports. Confirm, in plain language, what the board controls (direction and priorities) and what the employer controls (employment terms and discipline, where applicable). - Clarify who gives direction and who gives feedback
Establish a simple rule: one primary relationship lead for day-to-day coordination and feedback, with clear escalation to the board or committee. Make it explicit that board direction is not to be distributed informally across multiple members. - Create a basic role charter even when there is no “board staff job”
Where municipal staff or part-time administrators support the board, create a short charter describing expected outputs, timelines, decision pathways, and communication norms. This protects the working relationship and reduces churn and frustration. - Adopt a shared language for scope and outcomes
Agree on what “good” looks like. Is the board aiming for compliance, improved governance competence, better organization, more strategic work, or all of the above? Make those priorities explicit so the support role is not forced to interpret them. - Close the feedback loop consistently
Ensure the board provides feedback on usefulness and quality of outputs, not only on problems. This is not about praise. It is about clarity. Silence creates governance debt, and governance debt always comes due. - Use baseline guidance where roles are informal or hybrid
Where boards lack formal structures, practical guidance from board administrator resources, including the Administrator Handbook, can provide a starting framework for clarity, expectations, and working norms without requiring a full redesign.