Archive for the ‘Women’s Issues’ Category

Dear Nonprofiteer, How many roles does it take to screw up an organization?

October 21, 2010

Dear Nonprofiteer,

Several friends and I have started a new musical arts ensemble and are seeking to incorporate as a non-profit.  There are 8 artists in the ensemble, so we are a very small organization.  Since starting the ensemble was my idea, I have been serving as “Artistic Director,” choosing music, organizing rehearsals and performances, etc., as well as being an Artist in the ensemble.

We are currently working on our Bylaws and so have been thinking about how to structure our Board.  We have decided to have all the usual positions (President, VP, Secy, Treas) plus an Artist Representative, and a variable number of at-large Board members (no more than 5).  We have a provision in our (in-process-of-being-written) Bylaws where the Board can only select or remove the Artistic Director with a 2/3 consensus of the Artists.

At this point, all of our Artists will serve on the Board in some capacity (either as Officers or as at-large members), though we want to allow for a future time when the Artists get to be just Artists and let other people run the business side of things.  The other Artists want me to have a say-so in the running of the organization since the group was formed by my “vision”.

So my question is this:  Is it legal, ethical, practical, etc., for me to serve as both President AND Artistic Director (and an Artist in the ensemble)?  Or should one of the other Artists serve as President and I (as Art Dir) be only ex-officio with no vote?

I should also mention that my husband is also an Artist in the Ensemble, and so would also sit on the Board (for now).

Thank you very much for any advice you can give.  Signed,

Wearing Many Hats

Dear Hats:

Last issue first: it is never a good idea to have a married couple on the Board of a nonprofit, nor is it a good idea for one-half of the couple to serve on the Board while the other is employed by the agency.  (I gather you’re not getting paid as Artistic Director, but if you can be selected or fired by the Board, you’re an employee.)  A husband and wife on the Board stacks the voting since more often than not they will vote together, and the more important the issue the more likely they will march in lockstep.  Majority or not, they constitute a bloc, and blocs or factions create trouble on any Board.

And if your husband’s on the Board and you’re the Artistic Director, you’ve stacked the deck in your own favor on every issue while at the same time guaranteeing the maximum damage to the Board (your husband’s resignation) in case of any disagreement.  Don’t start out your nonprofit life with a built-in conflict of interest.

Further, as you seem to realize, no staff member (including the Artistic Director) should serve on the Board at all (whether President or not) except in an ex officio, non-voting capacity.

But let me suggest that you pause here to consider why you want to create a nonprofit structure at all.  Don’t become a nonprofit because “all arts groups are nonprofit;” the Nonprofiteer did that for a client once and it was a disaster.  As soon as there’s any money involved, you’ll find yourself fighting with the Board over whether those dollars should go directly to you, as Artistic Director; to the artists, in some proportionate way; or back into the institution.  So imagine yourself confronting that question now, and build the structure that will get you the answer that you want.

It’s fine to fill your Board with ensemble members and thus guarantee complete artistic and financial control of the agency by its artists.  But if you do, an “ensemble representative” would be redundant and should be omitted from your bylaws.

You might further consider that if you’re entirely ensemble-governed, you’re missing the opportunity to use the Board for its central purpose, which is to connect the group to the wider community (and, yes, raise money from that wider community to support the work you do).   You do your art for people; perhaps some of them should be represented on the Board—not just to do “the business stuff” but to help you maintain perspective about the relationship of your work to its audience.

In other words, as the Nonprofiteer has said in other contexts: nonprofit and 501c3 status are not mere legal trivialities to permit you to collect donations tax-free.  They’re statements about the kind of organization you are, namely, one answerable to the community through its Board.  You’re trading a certain amount of freedom for a certain amount of stability.  If you’re not ready to do that, skip nonprofit status and live hand-to-mouth til you’re ready to be a full-blown community institution–or until you figure out how to support your art entirely at the box office.

An appraising stare down the gift horse’s gullet

August 31, 2010

Jane Mayer’s excellent piece in this past week’s New Yorker about the brothers Koch, oil billionaires who’ve donated hundreds of millions to nonprofits promoting right-wing causes, finally clarified for the Nonprofiteer her unease at Bill Gates’s campaign to persuade billionaires to donate half their estates to charity.  It’s not a question of who has or hasn’t taken the pledge, though that’s an entertaining parlor game.  Nor is it the fact that the generosity of extremely wealthy people may not be what the rest of us have in mind when we hear the word “charity.”  (The Kochs’ “charity,” for instance, is a term of art encompassing donations to all kinds of institutions, predominantly think-tanks churning out rationales for the economic interests of wealthy people and front groups to make it appear that defending those economic interests is the political will of the non-wealthy majority.)

What’s troubling about the billionaires’ pledge remains so even when the receiving causes are unexceptionable.  Gates, for instance, has very generously underwritten substantial efforts by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.  Good for him, and for the world.

But.

Even the best-intentioned best-directed private donations are a way for moneyed people to work their will on the public, while the rest of us have nothing but the vote.  And when the level of contributions is discussed in fractions of $1B, it’s no longer charity within a democracy: it’s benevolent dictatorship.

Maybe our country should be giving less to treat AIDS et al and more to eradicate infant and maternal mortality through the UN Population Fund; maybe not.  That’s a decision to be made by the people of the United States, through our government.  It’s really not a decision for a single person.

Why not?  Well, for starters, the “single person” in question is a billionaire, and thus always a man.  That means almost by definition that the highest levels of charitable giving will overlook women, though we constitute more than a majority of the population.  And if that’s the case—if society’s needs are met by individual whim instead of collective decisions about the greatest good for the greatest number—then what, actually, is left of self-government?

Of course, billionaires have plenty of assistance in the task of allowing economic power to trump political will.  The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, holding that corporations are “persons” with First Amendment rights violated by limits on their campaign spending, already put the nation quite a way down that road.  But somehow it’s worse when something that sounds so benign—”half my estate to charity, because I’ve been so fortunate”—actually translates as “I set the agenda for the future of this country, because I’ve been so fortunate.”

What we really want from billionaires is for them to pay a lot more in income taxes: say, the 87% of taxable income paid in 1954,  or even the 70% paid at the start of the 1980s.  And then we as a group can decide where our group’s money goes.  All contribute, all decide.

And what we really want from billionaires’ heirs is for them to pay the 77% estate tax rate in effect in 1941, or even the 70% estate tax rate in effect in 1976.   (And let’s not hear any nonsense about “death taxes.”  The dead aren’t the ones paying.)  Why shouldn’t people who get money by inheritance have to pay taxes on it, just like people who get it by working?

Merely to ask that question is to answer it: no democratic society decides that people who don’t work should be privileged over those who do.  Societies like that are called “aristocracies,” and all those so-called Constitutional Originalists running around hijacking elections by screaming about excessive taxation should take a moment to remember that our Constitution was designed precisely to interfere with the establishment of a government by inheritance.

The Constitution prohibits not once but twice the granting of any title of nobility; but the Framers didn’t rest there.  They fought to cripple and ultimately abolish entail and primogeniture, the primary devices by which English law kept family fortunes together.  Why?  Because they realized that, if you’re founding a republic, it’s really not a good idea to let money keep piling up generation after generation in the same few pairs of hands.

Self-governing societies can’t operate on noblesse oblige, and societies that do aren’t truly self-governing.  As Dr. Franklin said, “A republic—if you can keep it.”

In Our Prime

July 22, 2010

Editor (and fellow nonprofit consultant) Nancy Worssam and I will be reading from our essay anthology In Our Prime, by and about women 50 and over, next Thursday evening, July 29, at 7:30 p.m. at Women and Children First bookstore, 5233 N. Clark Street in Chicago.  I hope some of you can join us that evening.

And please listen that morning—it’s only a week from today!—to Chicago Public Radio, 91.5 FM, when 848 host Alison Cuddy interviews Nancy and me about the inspirations for and origins of the book.

About nonprofits only insofar as they’re disproportionately run by women 50 and over

June 1, 2010

In Our Prime, the essay anthology by and about women 50 and over to which the Nonprofiteer contributed, now has its own Website and therefore has achieved Internet validity.  Copies of the book would have made a great gift for Mother’s Day but unfortunately the timing didn’t work out–so maybe you know a nice father who would want one?

The Nonprofiteer still has copies for sale, and the book is also available at Women & Children First bookstore in Chicago and on Amazon.

The Nonprofiteer is beside herself with ecstasy . . .

March 6, 2010

to report that she’s just been published for the first time on Huffington Post, with a piece called “Full-Body Scans Are a Feminist Issue.” Over the years, some of you have mentioned that you wouldn’t mind hearing her opinions about things other than nonprofit management; be careful what you wish for!

She’s also excited to mention that she’s ramping up her consulting practice again, with a slightly altered focus: in addition to strategic planning and individual-gifts fundraising, she’s concentrating on helping nonprofits use the flood of high-skill volunteers now available in virtually every location and occupation.  Her work will include Board recruitment and training, but won’t be confined to it–there must be 50 ways to take advantage of people’s passion, skills and abilities even if they’re not Board material.  And the Nonprofiteer is determined to discover each and every one of those ways!

If you’re in Chicago (or have a travel budget) and want to meet with the Nonprofiteer in her guise as NFP Consulting, please just drop her an e-mail.

And meanwhile, let her know what you think of the HuffPo piece.  Thanks!

Dear Nonprofiteer, “AND my office is in a broom closet!”

September 17, 2009

Dear Nonprofiteer,

I am just finishing a year as an ED for a small nonprofit arts organization which has been struggling for almost all of its 30 year history. We have a 2-person admin team and most things seem to fall to me–from grant writing to plumbing.

While we have met our challenges this year and will not go into the red, I have not been able to realize the high hopes that I started this job with last September.

We face the challenge of an old, crumbling and uncomfortable building. We have a board-–of people I personally like–which is resistant to fundraising responsibility but eager to micro-manage small details. I have tried hard to develop a grant campaign but found no funders willing to support our projects. So we limp along on tuition revenue–enough to secure breakeven but not enough to undertake new initiatives.

I try to keep telling myself that this is the way of things in this economy but I am becoming very depressed and am having a hard time getting myself motivated this fall. I am not in a position to walk away from this job and as an older woman in this job market I am not optimistic about other prospects.

And more whining – my office is a broom closet.

Any advice?

Signed, Depressed in the Dumps

Dear Depressed:

The situation you describe is serious but not hopeless. It only feels hopeless because you’re probably trying to solve all the organization’s problems at once, when they need to be solved step by step. The central problem you identify is the Board–for without its fundraising support, you’ll never be able to expand, or repair your building, or get out of the broom closet.

Sit down with your Board president and explain, in the straightforward terms you’ve done here, that the only reasonable source of expansion capital for the group is the Board of Directors and that this Board of Directors seems unwilling to answer your urgent calls for its participation. Propose two things: that you and the President get the Board engaged in a serious effort at recruiting new and motivated Board members, and that once you complete this effort (which should be doable in about 3 months) you conduct a training session for new and veteran Board members alike in which they will learn to ask for money. If the President agrees (and there’s no reason why s/he shouldn’t), this will give the Board something to do that will keep it from micromanaging you AND will result in a new focus on fundraising, even before the current members have been trained to do that work themselves. Most Boards–and most EDs–find the process of brainstorming about new recruits and then conducting recruitment breakfasts or lunches or dinners or midnight snacks an exhilarating one, and it sounds as though a bit of exhilaration wouldn’t come amiss right now.

Once you’ve set this in motion, stop pounding your head against the wall with general-purpose grant applications and go looking for funders who will pay for “capacity building,” a phrase encompassing everything from updating your computer system to teaching your Board how to do its job. Ask for money to hire a Board development consultant, and use that person to help push the Board through the recruitment process or to give them training or both. Your grant proposal should stress that the function of this activity is to enable you to reduce your dependence on grants in the future; this goes over big with people whose job it is to give out grants, contradictory as that may seem.

Finally, consider the possibility of framing this entire project as a prelude to a campaign to improve or replace the building. These are terrible times for capital campaigns, and your Board will figure that out soon enough; but they’ll be more excited about expanding their number, and more expansive in their thinking about who in the community should join them, if they think there’s a possibility someone will want to put a name to a bricks-and-mortar project. You can always disabuse them of this notion later–or, if you don’t, maybe they’ll become properly agitated about the condition of your “office.”

If there is anyplace else in the building your desk can be placed, move there now–being in a windowless space makes everything seem darker, both literally and figuratively, than it actually is. You’re the ED–pull rank and choose someplace better to sit. “Better” may be a term of art meaning “loathesome instead of positively grotesque,” but at this point a change is as good as a feast.

And if all the foregoing sounds exhausting rather than energizing, then do two more things: take a week off NOW and spend it sitting in a bubble bath or hiking through autumn leaves and not thinking about this place at all; and then come back and use the computer in your broom closet to start job-hunting. It’s a bad economy and older women do face discrimination in the workplace, but you’ll be able to find small arts organizations with better attitudes and atmospheres which will be thrilled to have you. You’ll also be able to find large arts organizations whose development, marketing and education departments could all use someone with your background–and which won’t expect you to fix the toilet.

Finally, please try to remember what made you take the job in the first place. If you love this art form, see if you can’t get back in touch with that fact and with the way that working for this agency contributes to the art form’s growth. If you don’t love the form–if you took the job because it was a job, or because you love “the arts” and figured any one was as good as any other–then this is never going to satisfy you, no matter how well-restored the building or cooperative your Board or spacious your office. Conversely, if this kind of artistic work is the love of your life, then you’ll fix toilets and make coffee and browbeat Board members to make sure it thrives.

Check in and let us all know how things go for you.

Dear Nonprofiteer, Where, oh where, has my agency gone? Where, oh where, can it be?

August 20, 2009

Dear Nonprofiteer,

Help! I’m the new-ish ED of an organization that serves victims of intimate violence. Our bylaws require that a certain percentage of the board identify as female. I get this, and am completely supportive of it; I believe that the board composition reflects the values of the organization and its leadership, and the organization’s understanding of the world. Problem: the board pres doesn’t get it, and isn’t happy about it, and wants to remove it from the bylaws because she thinks gender has nothing to do with good governance.

For this and a couple of other reasons, I am finding myself looking at being the director of an organization whose board seems to have different values than I signed on for. I came to the organization completely inspired by its anti-oppression, progressive voice for survivors of violence- it was edgy, pushed the boundaries, had a very diverse board, etc. I am finding that through board turnover, and a board recruitment process that had excluded me, we have a more conservative, homogenous, and less connected-to-the-issue board.

I know I have an important role in board development, and the recruitment process does now include me, but I feel like it’s too late–not to mention that I don’t feel like I have the internal or external resources, support or mandate to change board members’ values and worldview to become more in line with what I understood to be the organization’s philosophy.

I know I am framing the issue as a no-win, but I can’t see out of this. Whew. Do I have to find a new job? What about the tragedy of this organization becoming a cookie-cutter social service agency, instead of an instrument of social change?

Signed,

Disappointed

Dear Disappointed:

Whether that’s a tragedy or not depends on whether your community is in need of a social service agency that serves victims of intimate partner violence. But I take your point: you signed on to make change and instead you’re simply providing services.

If the question were just the one about women on the Board, I would suggest that you sit down with your Board president and spell out to her as you’ve done to me the way in which having a certain percentage of Board members identified as female makes for better governance of the institution. It’s easy to say she “doesn’t get it,” but it’s also exclusionary and snobbish: if fostering social change is an important part of your work, then you have to be prepared to spend time with lots of people who don’t get it–so that when you’re done with them, they do.

But if as you suggest it’s a broader problem–that now you’re surrounded by people unsympathetic to your goals–you have two choices: you can throw up your hands, or you can help those people enlarge their perspectives. That’s an often-overlooked part of Board development: educating Board members after you’ve recruited them. Can you and your Board president agree that the subject of how social change intersects with social services is important enough to the Board’s governing competence to warrant a thorough conversation?

In other words: you only have to leave this group if you’re not willing to do the work of orienting and persuading people who’ve joined its Board in good faith and probably have no idea that there’s anything wrong with being “a cookie-cutter social service agency. ” If you can make them see that there is, and that there’s something more the group should be doing, you can stay.

Otherwise: the Board always wins. Find yourself a different job.

The Nonprofiteer was once hired to run an agency which she understood one way, the Board understood a different way, the staff understood a third way and the clients a fourth way. The bad news was, she didn’t realize that, and spent all her time wondering why nobody seemed to get–that term again!–what she was trying to do.

You DO realize that, and that realization gives you the chance to shape the conversation about what the agency is doing, what it used to be doing, what it could be doing, and how the Board can contribute with more than just dollars and cents. Take the lead in setting up that conversation (though perhaps have the conversation itself facilitated by a neutral outsider), and see what progress you’re able to make. The worst that will happen is you’ll end up very clear that you need to go.

A holiday we’d just as soon not celebrate

May 6, 2009

A regular reader tips us off about a missed holiday:

Fair Pay Day [was] Tuesday, April 28, which symbolizes the day in 2009 when the average woman’s wages will finally catch up with those paid to the average man in 2008.”

But what could be more appropriate than to say, “Happy belated Fair Pay Day!” when fair pay itself is so incredibly late in coming?  And not just in the wicked for-profit world, either: as long as women are consigned to leading small nonprofits while men lead the large ones, we’re going to continue to make less–a lot less–than our brothers in arms.

Dear Nonprofiteer, I’ve got a treasure-house of knowledge and no one appreciates it

April 30, 2009

Dear Nonprofiteer:

I was just reelected as Treasurer of our social-service nonprofit.  You’d think this would make for smooth sailing at Board meetings, but instead everything’s been really bumpy.  We have a new Secretary, who doesn’t seem to understand anything I say so her summary of my financial reports is always wrong, and a new President.

Our previous Board President trusted me completely, and I’d make a report and recommendation and he’d immediately move to have it approved.  This new guy is always saying, “Well . . .” and “I don’t know . . .” and “Let me see . . .” and so we go from one meeting to the next without deciding whether to pull the plug on losing programs or increase the size of our reserve.

There’s not much point in having an experienced Treasurer if they’ve stopped being willing to benefit from my experience!  How can we get back to where we were?

Signed, Eager to Get Something Done Again

Dear Eager:

Not to get all Zen about it, but you CAN’T get back to where you were–you can only go forward.  And if you want to get something done in a democracy–and remember, nonprofit Boards are democracies–you have to persuade people it’s worth doing.

Under the old regime (it sounds like), they were persuaded because the Board president was persuaded, and conversely right now they’re not so sure because the Board president isn’t so sure.  So the first thing to do is figure out what’s most urgent of the things you want to accomplish (pulling the plug on a program?  increasing the size of the reserve? something else you didn’t mention?), and the second is to talk to the Board president before you go to the meeting and explain exactly how you think the numbers back up your position.

If the president’s been saying, “Well, I don’t know . . .” that’s probably because he doesn’t know, and rather than find your expertise reassuring he just finds it intimidating.  So boil your position down to words of one syllable.  Don’t be condescending, but don’t be technical, either.  Say, “Look, here are the costs of this program.  And here are our revenues.  It’s clearly a loser, and remember we started it three years ago because we thought it was going to make us money.  If it were central to the mission that would be one thing, but it’s actually kind of beside the point; so I don’t think we ought to drain the Treasury for it.  What do you think?”

And then listen to what he says, and answer his objections, so you guys walk in the room a united front.  Or, if you don’t, make sure he understands that you intend to recommend this and ask how he’d like to handle it: refer it to a committee including you?  Discuss and resolve it on the spot?  Agree to decide at the following meeting?

In other words, your task is to give the Board president all the information he needs to make, or recommend, or at least defer to, the decision you think is best.  I’d say your task was to “build trust,” but that sounds a little Zen, too.

As for the Secretary: if you want her to write down three specific key items in your report, then confine your oral report to those three items: “We have only 4 months’ worth of operating expenses in reserve when most experts recommend 6 months’ worth.  Our bank balance is $2162.  I analyzed the midnight volleyball program and it’s losing $300 every month, so it will drain us dry in 7 months.”

And if you need to correct her account of your previous report, try to do it in private: if you get the minutes before the meeting, call or e-mail the Secretary and say, “I must not have been clear last time: I meant to say that our reserve was too small, not our bank balance.  How do you want to handle this? Should we correct it in advance, or do you want me to clarify it when we review minutes at the meeting?”  She’ll pay more attention to what you say in meetings if she’s not worried the whole time that you’re going to yell at her if she gets it wrong.

Sure, there are lots of other things you could say about every and any financial report.  But your job as Treasurer is not only to understand the books but to translate them into small chunks of decision-making information.   The good news is, because you’re organizing the information, you can present it in such a way that it seems indisputable that things ought to be done your way.

In other words: you have just as much power and influence as you did under the old President and Secretary; you just need to wield it with a bit more subtlety until everyone gets comfortable once again with making decisions on your say-so.  Remember: when in doubt, people will default to NOT making a decision; they figure (falsely) that they can’t get in trouble if they do nothing.  If decisions are important to you, you have to figure out how to make them palatable to decisionmakers.  If getting something done matters, concentrate on reassuring your fellow and sister Board members that doing something is safe–and that doing nothing would be worse.

Where’s the beef?: Why are women getting all the gravy?

April 27, 2009

Hey, Nonprofiteer, here’s my beef:

All of a sudden a number of colleges have received completely anonymous donations in the millions of dollars, which is great–but it turns out all the colleges in question are run by women.  Now, why should something as irrelevant as the gender of the CEO determine who gets support for education?  Aren’t other colleges entitled to the same help?

Signed, Concerned With Merit

Hey, Concerned,

First of all, no one is “entitled” to a gift, as my law professors used to point out when we studied battles over wills and estates: the daughter may be a better person, but that doesn’t mean she “deserves” anything; if the giver intended to benefit the son, that’s the end of the conversation.

Second, and more important, what makes you think the anonymous college donor isn’t concerned about merit?  Maybe s/he thinks women are better stewards of resources than men (per this suggestion in the New York Times’ coverage of the same issue), which certainly is a reasonable posture given that the only sane things being said about the banking crisis are coming from the woman who oversees the TARP program and the woman who runs the FDIC.  (Meanwhile their male counterparts are busy making sure no squash partners or prep-school roommates are discomfited by inconvenient regulation.)

Or maybe s/he thinks colleges which act on their rhetoric about equality for women by hiring one as CEO are more likely to act on their rhetoric about equality for women in treatment of students and faculty.  (As opposed, say, to colleges whose presidents announce that women aren’t any good at science.)

In other words, this gift is all about merit, and about rewarding virtue.  If you find it hard to recognize as such, because the virtue in question is “acknowledging people who are often marginalized, even if we’re the majority,” that just makes the anonymous donor’s point: people still have a hard time with the idea that women matter.

But as it is written, women hold up [more than] half the sky; why shouldn’t good treatment of us be considered important enough to be worth millions?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 41 other followers