Written governance, lived governance: lessons from the ProtestInfo case

No serious wrongdoing, yet a crisis. The report on the ProtestInfo affair serves as a reminder of a truth that every administrator should keep in mind: governance only protects if it is implemented.

A case without a culprit, but not without lessons.
Since October 2025, the ProtestInfo affair had been stirring up the Protestant community in French-speaking Switzerland. Two journalists from the Reformed Churches' news agency, who were investigating the handling of an abuse case, had been dismissed, and accusations of censorship circulated. To get to the bottom of things, the Conference of Reformed Churches of French-speaking Switzerland (CER) commissioned an independent review committee, on which I had the honor of serving.
As reported by “24 heures” (Claude Beda, September 18, 2026), the report dismisses the most serious accusations: no censorship, no professional misconduct, and no wrongful dismissal. However, it highlights a series of shortcomings: an inadequate editorial policy, the absence of clearly identified leadership, and bypassed decision-making bodies. The result: a gradual loss of trust between church authorities and journalists.
This is precisely what makes this case instructive. There was no spectacular error. The crisis arose from a lack of clarity.

The gap that creates crises
Every organization has a written governance structure: statutes, regulations, charters, an organizational chart. But governance in practice is something else entirely. It's how decisions are actually made, on a Tuesday evening, when time is of the essence.
Crises arise from the gap between the two. A decision made "outside" the council's purview because the meeting is three weeks away. A leadership role that no one truly assumes because everyone assumes someone else is doing it. A rule circumvented once, then twice, until circumvention becomes the norm. None of these actions are serious on their own. Together, they erode trust, and when the first serious disagreement arises, there is no longer a legitimate framework for resolving it.
This mechanism is not unique to the ecclesiastical world. It can be found in family-owned SMEs, high-growth start-ups, and associations.

Three requirements for any council
The first requirement is clarity. Everyone must know who decides, on what matters, and according to what procedure. Vague regulations protect no one: they allow each party to interpret them to their advantage when interests diverge.
The second is implementation. Governance that is circumvented "to speed things up" always ends up costing more than the time it was supposed to save. The board's role is not only to adopt rules, but to ensure that they are respected, including by those who drafted them.
The third is understanding the different roles and responsibilities. You don't manage a newsroom like a communications department, nor a research lab like a sales team. Effective governance takes into account the specific requirements of each activity, instead of applying the same model everywhere.

Governing the crisis, not just avoiding it
This case also offers valuable insights into crisis management itself. Faced with the controversy, the CER (Crisis Evaluation Committee) chose to entrust the analysis to an external commission comprised of individuals with complementary profiles: representatives of the churches, a journalist and mediator, a lawyer specializing in labor and media law, and a former business executive. The CER subsequently acknowledged the report and committed to drawing lessons from it.
This is a good governance practice. An organization in crisis needs an independent perspective, capable of establishing the facts without bias or prejudgment. This is precisely the role an independent director can play, both before a crisis to prevent it, and during it to maintain a level head.

One question for each piece of advice
Every board of directors should regularly ask itself this question: are our decision-making rules actually being applied, including when we need to act quickly, and who has the legitimacy to point it out when they are not?
Good governance doesn't prevent all crises. It allows us to avoid most of them and to navigate the others methodically and calmly. But it's only valuable if someone at the table ensures that it's practiced and not just written down.

Serge Reymond, President of APIA Swiss