Posts Tagged ‘volunteer’

Dear Nonprofiteer, When is a Board member not a Board member?

February 28, 2013

Dear Nonprofiteer:

I came across your website as I was searching for information on Board members’ volunteering in programs. I’m wondering if you might have some advice on a situation I’m trying to handle.

I work in a service agency, which relies heavily on volunteers. Recently, one of our volunteers became a Board member. She has continued volunteering in the program and a couple of issues have come up that the program director would normally address quickly and easily with a volunteer. However, because this volunteer is now also a Board member, there is a hesitation because she is somewhat of a boss.

The issue has been brought to the attention of the Board president.  He and the program director have different ideas on how to handle the situation.  The president wants to handle the situation one on one because he doesn’t want to discourage other members from volunteering more.  The program director wants a limit on how much time a Board member can spend volunteering in a program.

I’m the Executive Director and can see both sides.  I’d like for the president to deal with it one on one, but to then adopt a policy/guidelines for Board members as volunteers to avoid conflicts of interest.  I can see where this particular person likes to make decisions and that easily oversteps the program director’s role.

I’ve been searching on line for a policy around this, but have found nothing.I would greatly appreciate any insight or resources that you might have to help with such an issue.

Sincerely,

Clowns to the Left of Me, Jokers to the Right

Dear Clowns:

This is only a problem because of what seems to be a fundamental misconception about the role of Board members, as opposed to the Board as a whole.  No individual Board member is “somewhat of a boss;” in fact, from the standpoint of the program director, the only boss she has is you, the Executive Director.  You, on the other hand, answer to the Board as a whole, and the Board as a whole has the right to hire, evaluate, discipline and if necessary fire you if it’s not satisfied with the job you’re doing.

But there’s a reason the Nonprofiteer keeps repeating “as a whole . . . as a whole.”  Individual Board members have no supervisory responsibility for personnel, even when they’re members of the Personnel Committee.  Personnel decisions belong to the Executive Director, except for decisions about the Executive Director’s tenure which belong to the Board—all together now—as a whole.

So the Nonprofiteer doesn’t see any reason why there should be a policy prohibiting Board members from volunteering in the program, or limiting the amount of time they can spend doing so.  What there should be is

  • a statement by the Board president to the volunteer in question that there seems to have been some confusion, what with her going from volunteer to Board and back again, and that it needs to be clear that when she’s a volunteer she’s not a Board member.  He doesn’t need to go into the subtleties of her general lack of power as an individual Board member.  He just needs to tell her that in the land of program, the program director is king, and thus that she should expect the program director to treat her exactly as she was treated before she joined the Board—that is, to supervise her.
  • another statement by the Board president to the program director reiterating what he said to the volunteer and reassuring  her that she’s not dealing with “somewhat of a boss” and should therefore not hesitate to resolve the problem with this volunteer as with any other.  And
  • a third statement by the Board president to the entire Board at the next Board meeting, leaning again on the “confusion” meme: “We’ve had some questions about the circumstances under which Board members are welcome as program volunteers.  So I thought I’d make clear that each of us is welcome under all circumstances—but when we’re program volunteers, we shed our Board identities like fur in the summertime.  None of us is enforcing policy, or overseeing staff, or evaluating operations—we’re just volunteering.  Which ought to be a great relief for each of us!”  Thus he’ll encourage Board members to volunteer without having them confuse their collective governance role with their individual participation role.

The reason you can’t find any relevant policies is that this isn’t an occasion for policies—it’s an occasion for common sense applied to clearly-understood roles.  Or, in other words, there’s no need for a conflict-of-interest policy because individual Board members have no recognizable interests; their task is to participate in group decision-making about what’s good for the agency.

If you also have a Board Personnel Committee that tries meddling with individual personnel decisions (as opposed, say, to writing policies and procedures applicable to all personnel), then you have a bigger version of the same problem and need to have a bigger discussion about the difference between the Board—what?—as a whole and individual Board members.

But there’s no reason either the problem or the discussion should lead you to limit Board members’ participation as program volunteers.   As a Board member told the Nonprofiteer just last night, the main satisfaction Board members get from their often thankless jobs is contact with the people you serve.  Unless your goal is to produce unhappy Board members and a short-handed program director, you don’t want to restrict or prohibit that contact.

Or, more pithily: damn the Board member!  Full speed ahead!

Giving Tuesday: A Holiday Tradition Worth Creating

November 27, 2012

This is glorious: someone figuring out how to divert some of that pointless holiday shopping into social good.  Go bust some charity’s door today!

From Law Students to Nonprofit Trustees

November 26, 2012
And now a word from the Nonprofiteer’s favorite guest poster, Lesley Rosenthal of Lincoln Center in New York:

Making the rounds at law schools for Good Counsel: Meeting the Legal Needs of Nonprofits, I’m heartened to meet so many students interested in serving on charities boards in their communities.  My recent talk at Harvard Law School about how law students and young lawyers can start preparing for the trustee role is available here.

Dear Nonprofiteer, How do we reach consensus on our Executive Director’s performance while preserving every Board member’s perspective?

November 20, 2012

Dear Nonprofiteer:

What is the best way for a Board to review its Executive Director?  Our current review process involves each Board member’s completing a review of the ED and then our Board president’s “averaging” the reviews (without further debate or discussion from the Board) into the final document.  While this is an effort at broad input, in reality it results in producing only the most general review, with minority viewpoints often dropped.

As  Board treasurer I work with the staff and Executive Director often in different ways than other Board members and this give me the opportunity to see areas of weakness and strength others may not see.    Likewise I’m sure other Board members, due to their unique positions of involvement, are seeing still different weaknesses and strengths but because their observations may not be those of the majority,  they never make it into the final report.

Signed,  Minority Report

Dear Minority:

You’ve put your finger on an important but oft-neglected aspect of nonprofit management: the need (as in the wider political arena) to protect the rights of the minority while preserving democratic governance by a majority.  Nonprofit Board members are often so averse to conflict that they unintentionally shut down opposition—even their own—to preserve the illusion of unity, or at least consensus.

But it’s not consensus if it doesn’t include acknowledgement of minority opinions, particularly when those opinions are informed by special expertise.   Board members are charged with governing agencies, which largely means overseeing the work of the Executive Director.  Many Board members ask how that’s possible when everything they know about the agency comes from that selfsame Executive Director; and the only good answer is to secure information from within the Board itself.

As Treasurer, you know whether the ED is a spendthrift or a penny-pincher; whether s/he manages cash flow well or whether every month is a festival of white knuckles; whether s/he is carrying the appropriate share (or much more, or much less) of the fundraising burden.  If you don’t share these data with the rest of the Board, all the other members are operating in needless dark.

The Nonprofiteer suggests that you propose to the Board president a relatively minor modification of the current approach:  that after s/he’s crafted what’s designed to be a consensus report on the Board’s behalf, s/he bring it back to the Board for final approval.  At that time, every Board member should get to see the comments of every other Board member, which enhances the likelihood that someone will say, “Wait a minute–we can’t gloss over these comments about how the Executive Director abuses the staff in public.”

The Board president probably wants to make sure that the ED isn’t getting feedback from all directions, because that sort of cacophony is to no one’s benefit.  That’s a fine goal, but it should be balanced with the goal of making the ED’s review as comprehensive and nuanced as possible.  Your agency’s decision to gather all the Board feedback gets you half the distance to the goal line; sharing and incorporating that input as a group will earn you a touchdown.

A useful resource

October 19, 2012

The Nonprofiteer has been fascinated for the past several years by the uses nonprofits make—or fail to make—of highly-skilled volunteers, and has given a fair amount of advice on the subject to whomever will listen.  But she’d be hard-pressed to produce a more careful, lucid, step-by-step account of high-skills volunteer management than that provided by Aaron Hurst of the Taproot Foundation in the new Jossey-Bass Guidebook Powered By Pro Bono.  It includes worksheets to help clients develop projects that are suitable for volunteer assistance (and to identify those that aren’t); instructions on how and why to act like a paying client; and much, much more. 

The only material omission is a discussion of how paid personnel feel about, and deal with, free assistance.  As this must surely be a hot topic at an institution devoted to providing agencies with unpaid labor, the omission must be deliberate, but is probably unwise.  Dealing with resentful staff is part of managing any high-skills volunteer project.

Still, if you’re a hard-pressed Executive Director (or Program Director, or Volunteer Coordinator), this will be the best $34.95 you could spend.

Dear Nonprofiteer, Can a donor dictate the use of her gift? How about if she’s the Executive Director? How about if she’s also on the Board?

October 11, 2012

Dear Nonprofiteer:

I was wondering if it is ethical for an Executive Director to donate to the organization she runs, designating her donation to bonuses or pay raises for the employees that work for her.  She is not paid, thus can remain on our Board.  Seems like a conflict to me.

Signed, Wondering

Dear Wondering:

The Nonprofiteer sees a conflict of interest in the situation you describe, all right, but it doesn’t have to do with the donation.  Any donor can specify the use to be made of his/her gift, and if those terms strike the recipient organization as too onerous it can simply refuse the gift.  A donation from a foundation restricted to paying the salary of a particular staff member—or to giving salary increases to staff members across the board—would be unexceptionable, and in fact would represent a refreshing understanding by the foundation community that people who work for nonprofits need to clothe their kids and pay mortgages, too.

But.

When the donor is the Executive Director, a gift of this kind might be seen as a way of buying (as opposed to earning) loyalty from the staff.  On the other hand, who’s in a better position than the ED to know that her staff members are overworked and underpaid?

But.

It’s the job of the Board to create and implement the agency’s budget, a budget which presumably includes a line item for staff salaries.  It isn’t really kosher for the Executive Director to unilaterally override this governance decision by whipping out her checkbook.

But.

If there’s a consensus on the Board that the staff is underpaid, and/or that it’s time for a raise if only there were money,  the Executive Director’s decision to alleviate that situation (and capacity to do so) should be as welcome as a similar decision by any other donor.

But.

The Nonprofiteer doesn’t understand “She is not paid, thus can remain on our Board.”  The Executive Director, regardless of her compensation status, should serve as an ex officio member of the Board—that is, a Board member by virtue of her position and not in her individual capacity.   If the Executive Director was on the Board first, she should have resigned when she took on the duties of Executive Director.  The Board’s power is concentrated largely in its ability to evaluate, hire and fire the Executive Director, and if necessary to go into executive session to do so—that is, to kick the ED out of the room.  But if the ED remains a Board member, she can’t be removed from the room, therefore she can’t be discussed frankly, therefore she probably can’t be removed, therefore the Board has no power at all.

So the conflict is between the ED-qua-ED and the ED-qua-Board member.  These two roles cannot coexist, and the balance of the Board should demand that the ED choose one or the other.  This is why it’s not even a good idea to permit a Board member to serve as ED on an interim basis—because the “interim” tends to become the “interminable” without anybody’s noticing.

So.

Now we’re back to the question of the gift.  If the ED remains on the Board, her contribution should be counted toward her mandatory give-or-get; but first the balance of the Board should vote on whether to accept the gift with the conditions she’s attached to it.  The ED-Board member, naturally, would recuse herself from this decision on the grounds that she—what?—has a conflict of interest, in this case between her role on the Board and her role as an individual donor to the agency.

By the same token, if the ED leaves the Board but remains at the agency, the Board once again has the right (and the obligation) to vote on whether to accept the gift she’s offered with the conditions she’s attached to it.  Naturally, this discussion would take place in executive session, with the ED excused from the room.  If Board members think this is a great opportunity to enhance compensation, they should accept; if they think this is a sneaky maneuver to undermine their budget authority, they should reject; but in any case the ED has no right to have her gift accepted unless and until the Board approves it.

To review: the question of the ethics of the donation doesn’t even arise unless the Board neglects its fiduciary obligation to evaluate gifts for unacceptable conditions.  The questionable ethics here are those of all concerned—Board members and ED/Board member alike—in permitting one person to fill two roles.

Once you’ve given someone a disproportionate share of power, you can’t be surprised when she makes a play for a further disproportionate share of power, in this case by brandishing a checkbook.  But the power to prevent the gift lies in the hands of the remainder of the Board, and if they fail to exercise it, they’re the ones whose ethics are questionable.

Nonprofit Corporate Governance: The Board’s Role

April 19, 2012
Editor’s Note: This article originally appeared on the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation; it is reposted to the Nonprofiteer by permission of the author Lesley Rosenthal.   Ms. Rosenthal is the general counsel of Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts and the author of Good Counsel: Meeting the Legal Needs of Nonprofits. Bart Friedman, senior partner at Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, contributed to this post.
——————————————-

Governing boards in the for-profit and nonprofit contexts share many legal precepts: the oversight role, the decision-making power, their place in the organizational structure, and their members’ fiduciary duties. But in the nonprofit setting, misconceptions about corporate governance abound. Are board members primarily fundraisers? Cheerleaders? A rubber stamp to legitimize the actions and decisions of the executives? Do they run the organization to the extent staff is unable? Are they window-dressing to spruce up the organization’s letterhead? If they are rich or famous, must they attend board meetings? How do they know whether they are doing a good job, or when it is time to go? Despite the common ancestry and legal underpinnings, nonprofit corporate governance places heightened demands on trustees: a larger mix of stakeholders, a more complex economic model, and a lack of external accountability. This post explores how substituting a charitable purpose for shareholders’ interests affects the board’s role.

In organizations of all kinds, good governance starts with the board of directors. The board’s role and legal obligation is to oversee the administration (management) of the organization and ensure that the organization fulfills its mission. Good board members monitor, guide, and enable good management; they do not do it themselves. The board generally has decision-making powers regarding matters of policy, direction, strategy, and governance of the organization.

The board of a well-governed nonprofit organization, like the board of a well-governed profit-making company, will do all of the following:

  • Formulate key corporate policies and strategic goals, focusing both on near-term and longer-term challenges and opportunities.
  • Authorize major transactions or other actions.
  • Oversee matters critical to the health of the organization— not decisions or approvals about specific matters, which is management’s role—but instead those involving fundamental matters such as the viability of its business model, the integrity of its internal systems and controls, and the accuracy of its financial statements.
  • Evaluate and help manage risk.
  • Steward the resources of the organization for the longer run, not just by carefully reviewing annual budgets and evaluating operations but also by encouraging foresight through several budget cycles, considering investments in light of future evolution, and planning for future capital needs.
  • Mentor senior management, provide resources, advice and introductions to help facilitate operations.

Similar to for-profit corporations, the power to control and oversee the management of the affairs and concerns of a nonprofit corporation is set forth in its corporate charter. Generally speaking, state law permits both kinds of corporations to self-direct significant allocations of power and responsibility, and then requires them to follow their own corporate governance and operational policies. The familiar fiduciary duties of care, loyalty, and – sometimes – obedience, undergird these requirements in both sectors.

In a well-governed organization of either the for-profit or nonprofit kind, the board does not permit executives to run and dominate board meetings, set agendas, or determine what information will be provided to board members. Under the leadership of an active and functioning board chair, there is adequate opportunity at board meetings for members to receive and discuss reports from not only the chief executive, but also, as appropriate, directly from other executives, in-house and outside professionals, and independent consultants if necessary. Time should be reserved for executive sessions, at which management should be excluded so that its performance may be fully and freely discussed.

Mission is what distinguishes nonprofits from their for-profit cousins: Nonprofits have missions instead of owners or shareholders. While the prime directive for board members of for-profit organizations is to ensure the highest possible value for owners, by contrast, nonprofit board members’ prime directive is mission fulfillment.

Board independence and board attention are of paramount importance in good nonprofit governance.  The independence of the board is key because of the non-distribution constraint – nonprofits exist to serve the public interest, not to benefit owners or other private parties.  Business or family relationships between the organization or its executives and a board member or her firm are frowned upon and should be strictly scrutinized under a conflict of interest policy administered by independent directors.  Even absent outright business or family relationships, a common shortcoming of nonprofit boards is that they are too small, too insular, or too deferential to the founder or chief executive.

Another frequent error of nonprofit boards is inviting new members because of their marquee name within a certain field of endeavor (e.g., a famous dancer on the board of a dance organization) or their means and inclination to donate, without due consideration to the person’s ability and availability to fulfill fiduciary duties, providing the critical oversight function. The governing body of a nonprofit must be made up entirely of people in a position to govern it—setting the strategic direction of the organization and overseeing management’s execution of the mission. Wealthy or prominent persons— donors, artists, scientists, public officials, and others—with an interest in the organization’s program but lacking the time, availability, or expertise to provide meaningful oversight may serve the organization in a non-fiduciary capacity, such as an honorary or advisory board, donors’ circle, or professional council.

Governance is more complex in charitable nonprofits for a number of reasons. Public charities (501(c)(3) organizations) are intended to serve a public purpose, and the board must bear in mind that broad interest.  Depending on its mission, history, and geographic reach, a nonprofit may also have specific stakeholders or different groups of stakeholders, some or all of whom may be represented by categories of board members under the organization’s by-laws. The interests of the organization’s ultimate clients, who may be indigent or otherwise disadvantaged, are another important consideration. The organization’s management and workforce may be paid less than their for-profit peers for similar work – if at all – further complicating the board’s oversight duties. In addition, nonprofit trustees may feel role-strain – or worse – because of real or perceived obligations to interact with, attract – or even be – charitable donors. These additional factors make nonprofit board decision-making arguably a much more complex process than the straightforward mandate of maximizing return.

Moreover, nonprofits’ economic models may be more complex than for-profits’ models, including a dynamic blend of earned revenue (ticket sales for a symphony, fee-for-service billings by a hospital, tuition payments to a university) and contributed income (annual fundraisers, “Friends of” membership groups, end-of-year solicitations, capital campaigns). Wealthier nonprofits with endowments can also count on a stream of revenues from investments. In harsh economic climates, however, there is a high correlation between reduced contributions and weaker investment returns. Compounding the difficulty, hard times on the revenue side often coincide with heightened demand for organizations’ services, particularly social services, increasing expenses and creating cash crunches, trouble balancing budgets, or even persistent deficits. Savvy nonprofits have added “third streams” of revenue to supplement and diversify traditional two sources. Entrepreneurial initiatives may include leveraging real estate or other assets, monetizing treasure troves of intellectual property know-how, or engaging in joint ventures with fellow nonprofits or even commercial entities. In envisioning and evaluating such enterprises, board and management must observe regulatory requirements and consider tax implications.  In lean years and in growth years, the board must be deeply engaged in overseeing the organization’s investments, its other sources of revenue and expense, and the planning of new initiatives.

What happens when board members fail?  In theory, the mechanism in a for-profit corporation for correcting errant board members is straightforward:  if the investors don’t like what the directors are doing, they vote them out of office. But in the absence of investors, nonprofit boards must be self-correcting. No one has ever made a tender offer because a nonprofit was inefficient. Moreover, governmental agencies regulating the sector tend to be small and under-resourced, making it highly unlikely that any but the most obvious misconduct will be detected and corrected from the outside. Unless board members are doing something illegal or are term-limited out of office, they may serve in perpetuity, giving them ultimate power over the organization. In this regard, nonprofit trusteeship is a unique and privileged role.

By a number of measures, nonprofit and for-profit board governance are similar: the board’s oversight role, its decision-making power, its structural place within the organization, and its members’ legal duties. The similarities end, however, where shareholder interest in maximizing returns gives way to mission fulfillment, a multiplicity of stakeholders, more complex business models, and self-accountability rather than external accountability.

More on the Buffett challenge

February 3, 2012

When Warren Buffett challenged Mitch McConnell to help him pay down the deficit, McConnell paid him no never-mind—but a teenage girl in Northbrook, IL heard and responded, sending $300 to the Feds and asking Buffett to do the same.  This is an adorable story, and the video makes it more adorable still.

But let’s not let this young woman’s sense of civic duty and remarkable act of civic participation distract from the real point of the Buffett challenge, which is that without increased taxation of the wealthy, jerks like Mitch McConnell will free-ride on public-spirited souls like Katie Murphy.

Dear Nonprofiteer, It’s all very well to say “call your donors,” but . . .

October 31, 2011

Do you have any advice on getting phone numbers for donors not connected to board/staff/etc?

We’re finding it increasingly challenging, and people are understandably protective of personal info.

Signed, Waiting By The Phone

Dear Waiting:

I don’t, actually, though I’m a big user of WhitePages.com, where lots of people “protective of personal info” will find to their surprise that they’ve been listed.  It’s worth checking, at least, because it’s much more comprehensive than the old phone book.  You do risk having people say, “How did you get this number?” though relatively few will want to yell at you for saying thank you, and it doesn’t hurt to say, “Your number is published on WhitePages.com so we thought it was public information; if you’d rather it weren’t you might contact the site.”

Another thing: make sure your staff carefully examines the front of any check you receive (does anyone still send checks instead of credit card numbers?).  It’s pretty standard to have phone numbers there, and that’s your first, last and only chance to copy down information you’ll need later.

Finally, modify your donor contribution card to ask for a phone number.  Some people will refuse to complete the card, but many will fill it in just out of habit and then you’ve got them.

The power of thanks

October 28, 2011

So here’s something the Nonprofiteer heard yesterday: if an agency’s response to every initial donation is to have a Board member pick up the phone and call the donor to thank him/her, the likelihood of a second donation increases by something like 80%.

What’s terrific about that (other than the obvious, donor retention) is that picking up the phone is often the biggest hurdle Board members need to clear to become effective fundraisers.  So if they get used to picking up the phone in a completely non-threatening situation–when their only task is to say, “Hi, I’m a volunteer Board member of agency X and I just wanted to thank you for your gift–we really appreciate your support”–you’re halfway (well, maybe one-third-way) to getting them to pick up the phone and ask their friends to come to a benefit event or a fundraising lunch.

Sounds like the ultimate low-cost high-yield endeavor.  Has anyone tried it?  Is it as good as it sounds?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 103 other followers