Executive Summary

Ex parte communication—the act of one party communicating privately and unilaterally with a decision-maker about a matter under their authority—carries deep implications for fairness, transparency, and institutional legitimacy. While highly regulated in courts and administrative agencies, the priority placed on preventing or disciplining ex parte communication varies dramatically across churches, non-profits, and business enterprises.

This white paper examines why some organizations treat ex parte interactions as critical governance risks, while others minimize, overlook, or even implicitly encourage such communications. The analysis highlights:

How organizational structure shapes the perception of ex parte threats How mission, values, and culture influence tolerance levels The risks ex parte communication poses when not addressed Where churches often differ from secular businesses Recommendations for governance, policy development, and accountability systems

1. Defining Ex Parte Communication in a Non-Legal Context

In court and regulatory settings, ex parte has a precise meaning—contact with a judge or regulator without the other party’s knowledge.

Outside the courtroom, the term is used more broadly to describe situations where:

A member, employee, donor, or stakeholder speaks privately with a decision-maker The decision-maker has authority, influence, or jurisdiction over a matter The communication occurs without transparency, minutes, or inclusion of affected parties

Examples across organizational types:

Sector

Example of Ex Parte Communication

Churches

A congregant privately influences a pastor about a conflict, discipline case, or ministry decision

Corporations

An employee bypasses reporting lines to privately sway executive decisions

Non-profits

A donor privately pressures board members to shape policy or personnel decisions

Small businesses

Family members or friends privately affecting managerial decisions

The key unifying factor: one-sided access that shapes decisions while excluding those with a legitimate interest in the matter.

2. Why Different Organizations Prioritize Ex Parte Communication Differently

2.1 Churches: Pastoral Culture, Informality, and Spiritualized Decision-Making

Many churches see themselves primarily as relational communities, not procedural institutions. As a result:

Informality is often valued over process Pastors are expected to be accessible, sympathetic listeners Decisions are sometimes framed as spiritual discernment rather than administrative processes Members may believe they have a pastoral right to confide privately Leaders may underestimate how these private conversations influence perceptions of fairness

Unless a church has a well-developed governance structure, ex parte communication is rarely viewed as an explicit priority.

Factors lowering church sensitivity to ex parte issues

Stewardship and shepherding models that view leadership as relational, not adjudicative Lack of legal training among ministers Culture of confidentiality for counseling Traditions emphasizing hierarchy and elder discretion The belief that “unity” is more important than transparency

Factors raising sensitivity

Congregations with past conflicts, scandals, or splits Churches that have adopted legal-style grievance processes Denominations with formal polity and judicial committees Growing awareness of liability, bias, and procedural harm

In general, churches tend to under-prioritize ex parte concerns, unless forced by past crises or legal exposure to formalize processes.

2.2 Secular Businesses: A Spectrum from Highly Structured to Informal

Corporate Enterprises (High Priority)

Large corporations treat ex parte communication as a governance issue when:

It undermines chain of command It affects human resources complaints It distorts compliance, procurement, or audit processes It compromises internal investigations

Examples:

HR investigations require “no side conversations” rules Procurement and bidding processes prohibit private vendor influence Audit functions are protected from management interference Boards enforce strict ethical walls in fiduciary matters

These organizations often have:

Legal counsel Compliance departments Whistleblower systems Documented standards of conduct Policies codifying who may speak with whom

Thus, ex parte communication is treated as a serious integrity risk.

Small Businesses (Low Priority)

Conversely, small and owner-operated businesses often:

Depend on informal relationships Lack formal HR or compliance structures Resolve disputes privately Accept side conversations as normal Allow owners to make ad hoc decisions

The family business culture often encourages ex parte communication rather than restricting it.

2.3 Non-profits and NGOs: Priorities Shift Based on Donor Influence

Non-profits face unique vulnerabilities because:

Donors may expect preferential access Volunteer leaders can act informally Boards may consist of community members without governance training

Priority is high when:

Grants require transparency Donors must not influence hiring or program decisions The organization manages vulnerable populations

Priority is low when:

The culture is informal Leadership relies on social networks Personal relationships are integral to fundraising

3. Institutional Risks of Uncontrolled Ex Parte Communication

Regardless of sector, organizations face predictable risks when private, unilateral influence is tolerated.

3.1 Procedural Injustice and Loss of Legitimacy

When people believe decisions are shaped by undisclosed conversations:

Trust collapses Respect for authority erodes Members or employees perceive favoritism Discipline or dispute processes lose legitimacy Leaders appear biased or corrupt

This is particularly damaging in churches, where expectations of fairness are tied to moral authority.

3.2 Escalation of Conflict

Ex parte influence often:

Intensifies divisions Fuels gossip and information asymmetry Creates opposing coalitions Undermines mediation processes Drives complainants into legal, denominational, or public avenues

In churches, this often results in schisms, member departures, or leadership crises.

3.3 Legal and Liability Exposure

In both churches and businesses, ex parte communication can affect:

Employment disputes Harassment or discrimination cases Due process claims Board governance investigations Insurance decisions Exposure to tort claims when decisions harm someone

When ex parte conversations shape official actions, the organization becomes vulnerable to claims of:

Bias Retaliation Failure to follow policy Negligent supervision

3.4 Ethical Compromise

Unchecked one-sided influence can compromise:

Ministerial ethics Fiduciary duties Professional boundaries Confidentiality standards Organizational consistency Decision integrity

This undermines not only outcomes but also the moral character of institutions.

4. Why Churches Often Underestimate These Risks

Church leaders—especially in small to mid-sized congregations—may fail to identify ex parte communication as a structural issue for several reasons:

4.1 Confusion Between Pastoral Care and Administrative Authority

Pastors assume that all conversations are “pastoral,” even when:

A member reports allegations about another member Someone advocates for a disciplinary outcome A person attempts to influence a board decision

They may not distinguish between counseling and adjudicating.

4.2 Lack of Written Policy

Most churches do not document:

Conflict resolution processes Complaint handling Investigative procedures Ethical boundaries for communication during disputes

This leaves leaders without procedural anchors.

4.3 Spiritual Framing of Decisions

Pastors may believe:

“God reveals the right outcome to leaders” “The Spirit guides decisions regardless of process” “Intentions matter more than structure”

Such frameworks unintentionally weaken procedural fairness.

4.4 Cultural Deference

Congregants often defer to pastors, believing:

“I shouldn’t confront them” “They must know what they’re doing” “Conflict is unspiritual”

This allows ex parte channels to grow unchecked.

5. When Churches Treat Ex Parte Communication as a Priority

Some churches—especially those with prior conflict or denominational training—implement strong safeguards:

Multiple witnesses requirements (Matt. 18:16) Public or documented church discipline steps Clear separation between pastoral counseling and legal processes Boards trained in impartial governance Policies requiring all parties to be included in discussions Written conflict resolution protocols Procedures for documentation and minutes

Priority tends to rise when congregations experience:

False accusations Leadership challenges Major disputes Legal threats Denominational review Insurance intervention

Crisis is often what forces churches to adopt standards that businesses consider normal.

6. Comparative Analysis: Churches vs. Businesses

Issue

Churches

Large Businesses

Small Businesses

Formal policies

Rare

Standard

Rare

Training on ex parte risks

Minimal

Regular

Minimal

Transparency expectations

Low

High

Low

Decision-making style

Personal and relational

Procedural and documented

Owner-driven

Legal exposure awareness

Low to moderate

High

Low

Governance maturity

Highly varied

Structured

Informal

Cultural resistance to boundaries

High (pastoral care mentality)

Low

High

Churches often resemble small businesses, not corporations, in their tolerance for ex parte communication—even though the potential reputational and ethical consequences are higher.

7. Recommendations for Churches and Businesses

7.1 Establish Clear Definitions and Boundaries

Organizations should define:

What counts as ex parte communication When it is prohibited When it is permitted (e.g., pastoral counseling without decision-making) Who may receive sensitive information How decisions must be documented

7.2 Create Transparent Handling Procedures

Procedures should include:

Required inclusion of all relevant parties Use of written statements rather than undocumented conversations Documentation of meetings, witnesses, and outcomes Clear escalation pathways

7.3 Training Leaders and Staff

Important topics include:

Unconscious bias Confidentiality boundaries Conflict of interest principles Ethical decision-making Distinguishing pastoral care from governance

7.4 Separate Counseling from Adjudication

Pastors or managers providing personal support must not adjudicate disputes involving those they counsel.

Use separate committees, deacons, or board members.

7.5 Encourage Direct, Not Indirect, Communication

Organizations can adopt:

“No triangulation” policies Matthew 18-style conflict rules in churches HR-style complaint procedures in businesses

7.6 Use Diverse Decision-Making Panels

To reduce bias:

Churches can use committees of 3–5 impartial elders Businesses can use HR investigators or compliance officers Non-profits can involve independent board members

7.7 Audit Decision Processes Periodically

Annual reviews can uncover:

Informal influence pathways Power imbalances Procedural gaps Risk hotspots

8. Conclusion

Ex parte communication poses significant governance challenges across all sectors, but churches and small organizations often underestimate its consequences. The absence of formal processes, reliance on relational authority, and spiritual framing of decisions lead many churches to view ex parte issues as low priority—until conflict emerges.

In contrast, large businesses treat ex parte communication as a predictable integrity risk requiring documented policies and enforcement mechanisms. The broader organizational insight is this:

Any institution with authority, decision-making power, or disciplinary responsibility must proactively manage ex parte communication to maintain fairness, legitimacy, and trust.

Churches, non-profits, and small businesses especially benefit from elevating this issue to a matter of governance priority, clarifying boundaries that protect both leaders and members from bias, conflict, and long-term institutional harm.