A nonprofit board should recognize something's not right when its funder steps in and says so. That's the case for a local organization's board that got bad news from a federal audit and subsequently fired its executive of 17 years.
After a federal audit found that a local organization had misused $250,000, the senior center fired its longtime director. On Monday, a Boston-based management firm will step in to run the organization.
The board gave the Exec 30 days notice and hired the management company to take over on an interim basis. The board also identified the "irregularities found by the HUD audit as 'unintentional errors' and stated neither the executive 'or anyone else acted unethically or were engaged in any kind of legal wrongdoing.'" However, the board would not comment on why specifically the board had decided to fire their exec.
Compliments to the board for stepping-in and taking action.
Lesson: the board should have in place reports that allow it to identify problems before being told so by their funders.
Question: what else was going on that would lead to such an action as firing the exec with 30 days notice (not always considered best practice)? Should the board have acted sooner?