Six parts, in this order, on one page. Everything else is attached.
The template
1. Subject line that states the ask. Not the topic. What you want and by when.
2. Recommendation. One sentence, first line, no preamble.
3. Reasons. Two or three, one short paragraph each, strongest first.
4. The case against. The strongest objection, stated fairly, and your answer to it.
5. Cost and risk. What this consumes and what could go wrong.
6. What you need. From whom, by when, in what form.
Annotated example
The example below is illustrative. The organization and figures are invented.
Subject: Recommend replacing Building 2 roof this FY — need board approval by 14 March
The subject line carries the decision, the timing, and the audience’s obligation. A director reading it in a list knows whether it requires them before opening it.
Recommendation. We should replace the Building 2 roof in this fiscal year at an estimated $310,000 rather than deferring to FY28 as planned.
One sentence. Includes the number, because a recommendation without magnitude cannot be assessed.
Reasons. The membrane has failed in two locations this winter and the repairs are no longer holding through a freeze cycle. Our roofing consultant assesses remaining life at under two years and notes that continued patching is now costing more annually than amortised replacement.
Deferral carries interior risk. Building 2 houses the server room and the records archive, neither of which is relocatable at reasonable cost. A single significant intrusion would exceed the replacement figure.
Two reasons, strongest first, each one paragraph. Specific enough to be checked. The consultant is identified by role.
The case against. The strongest objection is timing: the levy is on the November ballot and a visible capital expenditure invites the argument that we are not managing funds carefully. I think this is outweighed, because a failure during the campaign would be considerably worse than a planned replacement we can explain, and because the consultant’s assessment gives us a defensible record for having acted.
The real objection, stated in its strongest form, not a straw version. The answer is reasoning rather than dismissal.
Cost and risk. $310,000 from the facilities reserve, leaving approximately $140,000. The reserve would not cover a second unplanned major item this year. Work would run six to eight weeks with partial disruption to the east offices.
What it consumes, what position it leaves you in, and what it disrupts. The second is the part most memos omit.
What I need. Board approval at the 14 March meeting. If approved, I will bring three bids to the April meeting for selection.
Names the decision, the date, and what happens next, so nobody has to ask.
Attached: consultant’s assessment (11 pp.); repair cost history FY24–FY27; reserve schedule.
Four checks before sending
Does the first line state the recommendation? If a reader stopping after one sentence would not know what you want, reorder.
Is the objection the real one? If somebody in the room would raise something stronger than what you wrote, you have written a straw version and it will be visible.
Could a person who joined last month follow it? Names by role, no internal shorthand, constraints stated.
Is anything on the page there to demonstrate effort? History the reader lived through, restatement of the obvious, and options nobody is considering all belong in the attachments or nowhere.
Where it does not apply
This is a decision instrument. It is wrong for anything whose value is the reasoning itself, for institutional history being recorded, and for genuinely exploratory work where no recommendation exists yet.
If you cannot complete part two, the memo is not ready. That is the template working rather than failing.
Edited by Patrick J. Wolf, PhD