Many if not the majority of consultants to nonprofit organizations advise that a significant if not THE most significant role for board members is to raise money. This is why these same consultants generally advise that boards should have a lot of people who either have or have access to money.
As I have witnessed through this blog since I began writing, sometimes public sector connections can support this belief about the role of the board is to get money but not in such a positive way. Check-out this Washington Post story on what is being referred to as ThomasGate. This story raises up a notch the question of what exactly is tainted money, in addition to challenging a nonprofit's ability to set policy that would ensure it and its constituency "win" more than its donors.
PS. I believe that a nonprofit board's duty of care may include giving and/or getting money but the key word is "may". There can be consequences when a board plays no giving or getting role but this is not the only criteria for determining board members' role and the board and staff need to get agreement on what role each will play and subsequently then recruit board members that "match" the agreement. Further, I believe that equally if not more important for fulfilling the duty of care are planning, policy setting and evaluation activities.
Comments