Nonprofit Board Crisis

Nonprofit Board Composition: Influencers #NonprofitBoards

Board composition, that is, who should be sitting at a nonprofit's governing table, matters for a number of reasons.  One reality and a focus of many conversations this year, was how non-diverse nonprofit boards are.  So, while articles have abounded on this reality, few have highlighted what action should be taken other than "go be more diverse".  The following Entrepreneur article however does offer some pearls, or at least one pearl that speaks to a class of folks that coincidentally, likely results in increased board diversity.  That class: influencers.

Read on.

 

 

The Secret to Making Boards More Successful Is to Make Them More Approachable

Boards sometimes overlook a prime member of their audience: the person on the receiving end.

Barrett Wissman

GUEST WRITER

Chairman of IMG Artists and Principal in Two Pillar Management

 

December 13, 2018 5 min read

Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

Many industries and organizations have seen their boards undergo massive change in recent years. Whether this is due to new compliance regulations or simple retirements, shifting the make-up of a board can have big consequences.

And some have actively pursued new members to pump new blood -- and fresh perspectives -- into their organizations. PwC found that 91 percent of directors feel diverse boards are more effective, and 84 percent believe a diverse set of board members increases company performance.

PwC did a little more digging into nine individual industries, and it found that while my industry, entertainment and media companies, are responsible for a wide range of issues -- content distribution, customer engagement, data collection and technology application -- not a single entertainment organization it studied had a risk committee. These committees, intended to evaluate and mitigate risks on the horizon, are especially valuable for companies worried about everything from piracy to data privacy.

The key, I think, is to consider at a new group of potential board members: influencers. Influencers can both increase a board’s diversity and help it recognize risks.

Related: 5 Reasons Why Even Small Companies Need a Board of Directors

What board composition do you need?

A board of directors is typically built by bringing together people with the skills, experiences and perspectives necessary to make an organization successful. By definition, each organization’s board will look different from the next. An environmental nonprofit may seek people with wildlife and fisheries experience, people with backgrounds in oil or other natural resources and scientists. A retail kids’ brand may build a board around people who have been marketers, buyers, parents and pediatricians.

Board composition considerations often result in a good mix of people who have the knowledge to advise on developing a service or product, as well as how to scale efforts and market them wisely. Sometimes, however, the diversity question overlooks a prime member of the audience: the person on the receiving end.

I wrote in ReadWrite about how many arts boards appoint members of the society pages to join them. This, of course, rewards people who helped fund arts opportunities, but loading arts-oriented boards with people of similar perspectives frequently creates a divide between what different members of the art-supporting community need or want. People of different demographic groups -- in terms of age, income and more -- may have very different expectations. Failing to meet those expectations risks decreased engagement and, ultimately, funding.

To counter that tendency, I recommend that boards consider adding influencers to their ranks. These people are on the front lines of culture in one way or another who have earned their fans' trust. They’re approachable, and their entire platform is built on their ability to communicate with and listen to the people who follow them. By default, people see them as “real,” and they can serve as valuable middlemen, navigating what a board’s audience wants and what the board itself needs to accomplish.

Related: A Bad Board of Directors Can Ruin Your Company -- Here's How to Make Sure It Doesn't Happen to You

Recruiting influencers to your board.

Adding influencers to a board demands a look at both diversity and risk. Someone who understands an organization’s audience and has gained the trust of that audience is likely in a good position to assess risk.

For example, an influencer who’s noticed that fans in a specific demographic are leaving one social media platform for another can signal that reallocating marketing spend would be a smart move. Likewise, an influencer being inundated with questions about a new piece of legislation can start a conversation about building a campaign to educate audience members and diminish fears. Being knee-deep in the day-to-day gives these influencers insights that are helpful to boards, but difficult to obtain.

Identifying influencers who are relevant to a specific organization’s goals is one thing; attracting them is another. Here’s how you can pique their interest.

Show them why they should care.

Just like celebrity influencers, other influencers want to know why you’re interested in them specifically -- what’s in it for them? While it’s important to talk about the value they can bring to the board and the organization as a whole, also let them know how they could benefit. Would they gain a new audience? Would they reinforce their credibility in a certain area?

Highlight how their followers will benefit.

An influencer's platform is enormously valuable -- and they know it. They won’t risk it for something less than worthwhile, so understanding why their followers would benefit from their board membership can be key. Can they advocate for new venues? Can they become the face of a new line of products their fans want?

Related: Top 9 Digital Influencers Who Cast A Spell Over Millennials On Twitter

Paint a picture of long-term possibilities.

A lot of influencers are big on building something, whether it’s a community or a nonprofit. Talk up the possibilities that await if the board can address specific needs or meets its goals: driving enough revenue to create a new art program, hiring an expert to build new tech capabilities, building a second arm for a charity at the local level. These opportunities will appeal to influencers as much as the current opportunity.

Influencers bring new perspectives to boards, helping them get away from their myopic view. Their fresh outlook can also help them spot problem areas and long-term risks that loom, preventing their organizations -- and their followers -- from future disappointment. By giving them a seat at the table, organizations could find themselves in a much better place.

Boy Scouts to Earn New Badge #NonprofitBoards

Proving they aren't everything they say they are, Boy Scouts USA, facing declining memberships and lawsuits from sexual abuse, are considering what I believe to be a "cowards way out": bankruptcy.  Yup, the institution that has done good and not so good things for boys and not so good things for gay men, have determined that the financial demands being placed on them now and in the immediate future are too much for them to handle.  And why "cowards way out"?  Bankruptcy allows an organization to pay its debt or least not fully.  Bankruptcy permits an organization's owners to "hide" behind the law and not be fully responsible for bad decision-making (which includes no longer being current for those who might be Scouts).  In my opinion, the Boy Scouts have done this to themselves and the board in particular should not be left off the hook through bankruptcy.  Bankruptcy for individuals and small businesses is one thing but bankruptcy for institutions presumably with this experience and knowledge via the board - no excuse!  The board needs to go out and earn this merit badge!

Here's the Wall Street Journal https://www.wsj.com/articles/boy-scouts-of-america-considers-bankruptcy-filing-amid-sex-abuse-lawsuits-11544649657?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=2.

Boy Scouts of America Considers Bankruptcy Filing Amid Sex-Abuse Lawsuits

Nonprofit has hired law firm Sidley Austin for assistance in a possible chapter 11 bankruptcy filing

Boy Scouts of America says that more than 110 million people have participated in its educational programs. PHOTO: GEORGE FREY/GETTY IMAGES

32 COMMENTS

By 

Katy Stech Ferek

Updated Dec. 12, 2018 5:42 p.m. ET

 

The Boy Scouts of America is considering filing for bankruptcy protection as it faces dwindling membership and escalating legal costs related to lawsuits over how it handled allegations of sex abuse.

Leaders of the Boy Scouts, one of the country’s largest youth organizations, have hired law firm Sidley Austin LLP for assistance with a possible chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, according to people familiar with the matter.

 

Founded in 1910, the Boy Scouts group says that more than 110 million people have participated in its educational programs, which promote outdoors skills, character-building and leadership.

The Boy Scouts have been at the center of sexual-abuse scandals in the past, and the organization is facing a number of lawsuits that allege inappropriate conduct by employees or volunteers in incidents dating back as far as the 1960s. Filing for bankruptcy would stop the litigation and would give the nonprofit a chance to negotiate with those who have sued.

Other organizations facing similar legal pressure have also turned to bankruptcy protection in recent years. More than 20 Catholic dioceses and religious orders have filed for chapter 11 protection to negotiate payouts to thousands of victims. And last week USA Gymnastics, the governing body for the sport, filed for bankruptcy as it faces lawsuits from decadeslong sexual abuse by the national team’s former doctor Larry Nassar.

The Boy Scouts released a letter to its employees Wednesday that said it plans to “explore all options available to ensure that the local and national programming of the Boy Scouts of America continues uninterrupted.”

Participation in the organization’s programs has fallen in recent years, though the group opened some of its programs to girls and transgender boys. The Boy Scouts currently have more than 2.3 million youth members. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, formerly one of the group’s largest sponsors, has said it will withdraw from Boy Scout programs. The church said it would develop its own program for young men.

The Boy Scouts group has drawn scrutiny over its slow pace to become more inclusive, including by lifting a ban in 2015 on gay men and lesbians serving in leadership roles.

 

 

The group has also dealt with fallout from its decision last year to expand its recruitment of girls, putting it in competition with the Girl Scouts of the USA, a separate group that offers similar programming and has also seen membership fall.

In November, the Girl Scouts filed a trademark lawsuit against the organization, saying its push for girls to join caused confusion and led to instances in which parents mistakenly signed their children up for Boy Scouts programs.

A Boy Scouts spokeswoman said the group is reviewing the lawsuit and that the expansion came “after years of requests from families who wanted” to participate in its programs.

In recent years, the Boy Scouts group’s legal bills for work done by some outside law firms have grown. In 2017, the organization paid $7.6 million to labor and employment law firm Ogletree Deakins, according to public filings. It paid Ogletree $3.5 million in 2016 and $859,347 in 2015, the filings show.

In the group’s latest annual report, Boy Scout officials said its future financial situation will partly depend on the outcome of sex-abuse-related litigation and future damages awarded. One lawsuit unfolding in Idaho over alleged abuse by several former leaders is set for a jury trial in May.

The organization has said that it has never knowingly allowed a sexual predator to work with youth members and has put rules in place to strengthen protections.

In the annual report, officials said they were “aware of threatened and expanding litigation of a similar nature.” They added that the group’s financial health will also depend on how much of the litigation costs will be covered by insurance.

The organization has sued its insurers at least twice since 2013, accusing them of failing to cover costs related to previous sex-abuse lawsuits. In its annual report, organization leaders said the latest lawsuits could force the group “to pay damages out of its own funds to the extent the claims are not covered by insurance or if the insurance carriers are unable or unwilling to honor the claims.”

—Jonathan Randles contributed to this article.

Write to Katy Stech Ferek at katherine.stech@wsj.com

 

Zombie Johnson Amendment Repeal Is Back #NonprofitBoards

Still want faith bodies and nonprofits to be freely political and accept donor money that would have otherwise been spent through bodies that actually are intended for political purposes?  The Johnson Amendment Repeal is back on the table and unless your board and volunteer's voices are heard (because right now under the Johnson Amendment you can't use your voice), this zombie of a proposed policy will live forever.  And yes, there is good news - the political theater curtain is almost drawn - at least this year.

According to Politico:

By BRIAN FALER

 

12/10/2018 07:28 PM EST

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

House Republicans released a substantially revised year-end tax bill today, though the odds of it reaching President Trump’s desk seem to have only gotten longer.

Facing complaints from conservatives, Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), the chamber’s top tax writer, added some of their top priorities, including language repealing the decades-old Johnson amendment, which bars nonprofits from engaging in political activities.

 

So, it may not need a huge voice but it won't hurt to let your representatives know that repeal is just plain bad politics.

Board Meeting Minutes #NonprofitBoards

Very few folks WANT to be the Board Secretary.  They view the job as tedious and one that caries the requirement that some document be produced after EVERY meeting.  I also recognize that for many, taking notes is perceived as a distraction from full meeting participation.  On the other hand, there are those who find being Secretary allows them to participate without actually having to be really active during the meeting.  Funny how this can work.  And yes, there are some additional duties that are often highlighted in the by-laws but not ones that I think particularly odious.

Anyway, I would pose that part of the challenge facing those who would be Secretary is an uncertainty about how much they really need to record in the way of minutes.  My simple rule: you have to know who is in the room, what precisely is being voted on and what is the result.  While it can be helpful to know context and background, committees could support this with their reports ASSUMING the board only makes decisions when they are fully informed or at least have had some party "vet" the question.

The folks over at BoardEffect aka Diligent (they bring you the on-line board portal), have put some good thought into meeting minute taking and you can download their wisdom, for free!  Here's a link:

https://diligent.com/how-to-take-board-meeting-minutes?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=US%20-%20Content&utm_term=%2Bboard%20%2Bminutes%7cb&utm_content=256892065884&_bk=%2Bboard%20%2Bminutes&_bt=256892065884&_bm=b&_bn=g&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI_erfvcOa3wIVg5yzCh0gwwWrEAAYAyAAEgJhavD_BwE       

Nonprofit Oversight Matters #NonprofitBoards

A recent Star-Telegram article serves to remind us that the added value of a nonprofit board is oversight, an element distinctly missing and perhaps something that should be legislatively rectified (and coming in part by those who have brought you the Anti-Johnson Amendment) in some, particularly independent, faith bodies.  The following commentary began an article that focused on sex abuse by pastors:

An eight-month investigation by the Star-Telegram shows that what happened at Faith Baptist is just one example in a nationwide pattern of cover-ups and shuffling of suspected abusers among churches and universities that, like Faith Baptist, are part of the independent fundamental Baptist movement.

The cover-ups are reminiscent of the scandals of the Roman Catholic Church, but distinctly different.

Decisions in the Catholic Church are made within a hierarchical structure that governs all churches. Independent fundamental Baptist churches operate with no oversight or structure outside their own walls.

One thing does bind the churches that face abuse accusations: a culture that uses fear to control and gives men in power the role of unquestioned and ultimate authority. In that environment, abuse has visited scores of fundamental Baptist churches.

I acknowledge that while multitudinous incidents of similar issues have indeed faced the Roman Catholic Church, it has a hierarchy and processes that in the end can result in accountability, unlike the various faith bodies identified in the Star-Telegram.  At the same time, be it the Catholic Church or other faith bodies, the lack of lay leadership in the form of a governance body ensures or at least contributes to the likelihood that there will be little or no accountability for misdeeds by "employees" were those in charge truly identified as employees.  

So I believe then that faith bodies, no matter the denomination, should be required to obtain nonprofit status which in-turn requires the installation of a governing board and in-turn a higher likelihood of accountability and obedience to the principles of doing no harm?  Absolutely!

Nonprofit Boards and Fundraising for Fee #NonprofitBoards

In the Chronicle of Philanthropy, Anne Wallestad, the CEO of BoardSource, recently offered her thinking about transparency, pay-for-fundraising, and fundraising strategy.  This is a helpful read for boards and their donors.  I have just included the highlights.

Deeply Flawed ‘Pennies for Charity’ Report Can Hurt Good Nonprofits

By Anne Wallestad
CEO of BoardSource

Last week, the New York Attorney General’s office released its most recent "Pennies for Charity" report, which seeks to educate donors about "where your money goes" when you give to a particular nonprofit.

State officials also described the report as a call to action for donors and boards to be vigilant about raising flags when organizations are spending a significant portion of raised funds on the cost of raising them, encouraging donors and board members to seek out information on the Pennies for Charity database, which reports on the money raised by professional fundraisers, the people a nonprofit hires to solicit funds on its behalf, not its staff members.

As an advocate for strong ethical oversight by boards of directors, I am generally a proponent of transparency. In this case, however, I believe it is actually very problematic.

Why? Because the "Pennies for Charity" report and database are predicated on a number of assumptions about fundraising and fundraising strategy that are quite flawed.

Assumption 1: The less an organization spends on fundraising, the more effective that organization is.

Reality: The percentage of budget spent on fundraising may be a measure of how effective an organization is at fundraising, but it is not a measure of how effective it is as an organization. It is a measure of fundraising efficiency, which — while relevant to overall organizational efficiency — tells you absolutely nothing about the scope, quality, or effectiveness of an organization’s work.

Assumption 2: It’s always better to spend less on fundraising.

Reality: The phrase "It takes money to make money" isn’t often applied to nonprofits, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Nonprofit organizations need raised funds to support the important work that they do, and — to succeed in the long-term — they need to invest in building a strong, effective, and resilient fundraising program. It costs money, whether in the form of smart strategic fundraising staff, thoughtful donor cultivation and stewardship tactics, or the counsel and expertise of external paid, professional fundraisers.

In fact, it’s possible for an organization to spend too little on fundraising. The evidence of this — while not often named as such — can be seen across the nonprofit world. When organizations falter, or even go under, as a result of losing one big grant or donor — or when they simply can’t raise enough money to build or strengthen their programs — there’s a good chance that it is due, at least in some part, to an underinvestment in fundraising.

Assumption 3: Each individual fundraising tactic is designed to drive as much money as possible into the organization.

Reality: Some smart fundraising strategies and tactics expect to make very little money, or even lose some. This is especially true of broad-based fundraising efforts that are focused on introducing new, smaller-dollar donors to an organization. Those efforts are long-term investments to bring new donors into the organization, with the understanding that — over time — that will pay off with a stronger pool of donors that is not only broader and more inclusive but also more resilient as donor interests shift and change. As such, some fundraising tactics break even — or even lose money — but are still "successful" based on their stated goals.

Assumption 4: Donors have a right to ensure the majority of their donation will go to support the organization’s mission.

Reality: This is much more nuanced than most assume. Because different fundraising tactics can have different purposes within a larger fundraising strategy, it’s simply not helpful to focus on following an individual donor’s contribution through the organization. Instead, donors (and regulators and watchdogs, for that matter) should seek to understand how — in aggregate — an organization is using the dollars it raises in pursuit of its mission.

 

Transparency is good. But transparency that is incomplete or lacking the context needed to meaningfully interpret the data can be dangerous. Unfortunately, the Pennies for Charity database is just that.

Anne Wallestad is chief executive of BoardSource, an organization that works to strengthen nonprofit boards.

 

Does Bankruptcy Provide Forgiveness? #NonprofitBoards

As you likely have heard, USA Gymnastics, the folks who could not hear the abuse being conducted by the team doctor (and accommodated by ?who knows how many) has declared bankruptcy effectively stopping all legal claims against it.  But should bankruptcy "free" the board from its failing?  This of course presumes or assumes that somewhere along the line the board was aware of the abuses by its staff (or rumors) but one does wonder how at least one among the members could not be and then would not tell the others and then would call for immediate action.  Or, was the board being responsible enough for having held its management fully responsible and started a process that has seen three new directors in a fairly short period of time?

It does not "feel" right that the board, by filing bankruptcy, has successfully freed itself from the obligations to the survivors.  Where else might the survivors go for justice?  Should Perhaps they should turn to the US Olympic Committee, a sort-of parent organization of USA Gymnastics?  But no, I would begin with the board members.  It is they who have failed at minimum, through their deafness, at maximum, by having turned a blind eye to the condition of their members.

Nonprofit Board Decisions in Difficult Times #Nonprofit

The following NY Times Q&A explores what employees of one nonprofit question regarding management's decision to lay-off employees while retaining perceived high salaries.  This  situation is certainly not unique for anyone in any of the sectors: public, private and/or nonprofit.  And I suppose the 
"answer" offered is not surprising.  But the Q&A also serves to remind us that a board, through policy (mission, strategic plan, budget), has some say in what happens to both its management and employees and particularly regarding compensation and benefits.  Now, boards comprised of corporate folks are likely to be much more tolerant of a high salary differential between management and employees under the rubric that it takes money to get good management and good management is essential to effectiveness and efficiency.  Other types of boards maybe not so much but the differential is a policy decision.  And the decision to pay at or above market is also a board policy decision.

What I might point out is missing as a solution in this Q&A is the possible role of the board to support management's search for additional resources to ensure mission is continued.  Now, if management told the board that there really are no more resources to be had and the only answer is layoffs, how would and should the board know different becomes the more critical question.  And no, I am not saying the board should absolutely go out and raise the balance of funds needed.  Yes, that's a possibility to be explored and the board should have the discussion but it could well be that the end answer is "no" for any number of valid and not-so-valid reasons.  But maybe just having the conversation is the correct starting place by a board?

From the New York Times Magazine:

 

Q. I work at a nonprofit that advocates for consumer rights and financial literacy, a mission I have been proud to serve.

We recently suffered a financial crisis of our own. Due to changing federal policies, among other factors, we lost a chunk of our annual budget. Management decided to cut about a quarter of the staff to protect our long-term future.

I was of course saddened by what happened, but I understood that there were no good options. Then a staff member who was laid off (and quickly found a new job) told me that senior managers’ salaries made up nearly a quarter of the budget and that we were paying for a “company car” for our president. In addition, a former manager is paid an exorbitant hourly rate for consulting.

All of this hurt to hear. Our leaders sacrificed dozens of direct-service jobs that impact our clients’ lives but seemingly not their own relatively large salaries and fringe benefits. I am considering quitting in protest. (I am sure that the board is aware of the pay structure, so I doubt they will be of help.) I have also considered informing the media, but I don’t know what the ethical response is to what I see as an injustice to our fired colleagues and a violation of our mission.  

A. Our economy is warmly solicitous toward people at the top of the income hierarchy, icily indifferent toward those in the middle and at the bottom. The Economic Policy Institute says that last year the C.E.O.s of the largest 350 companies in the United States were paid on average 300 times as much as their average employee. And the nonprofit sector, given that it competes for talent with the for-profit sector, isn’t going to be entirely exempt from the trend.

Your organization is obliged to serve its mission as well as it can with the resources it can muster. To do so, it needs good staff and good management — which requires it to be mindful of what the market rate is for people with the skills it needs. (Nonprofits typically do comparative analyses of salaries in their sector when considering raises for top management.) At the same time, income is just one factor that draws employees; often staff members will work for less when they find the work genuinely rewarding.

Especially given the particular mission of your nonprofit, the situation sounds worrisome, and it might indeed have been a good idea to appeal to those at the top to accept cuts in salary in order to reduce the number of frontline employees who were let go. It might also have been better to end a consulting contract than to fire a permanent employee. Both would be harder than layoffs at the bottom, because board members are likely to be personally closer to senior managers (and former managers) than to other employees. Still, it’s their responsibility to weigh such options.

None of these considerations, however, prove that the leadership made the wrong decision. When the budget shrinks, personnel decisions have to take account of the employment market. Suppose cutting your president’s perks or pay would incline her to take a job elsewhere. (Though that car sounds like something most places wouldn’t offer.) The cost to your organization of finding a new one, especially during a rocky period, might mean that it wasn’t worth the risk. A fixed, across-the-board reduction in salary, defined in percentage terms, might simply produce an organization full of disgruntled people waiting for a better opportunity. It’s conceivable, too, that the core competences of the organization lie in the best-paid people and that the less well paid would be easier to replace if and when funds return. You should feel free to talk to the media if you’ve determined that a nonprofit devoted to financial literacy has made bad financial decisions. But to know that, you would have to be privy to the details. Are you? You say that senior managers “seemingly” didn’t cut their own earnings — which makes it sound as if you might not be.

The inequality in rewards between top and bottom is ultimately a structural problem that requires structural solutions. Several countries in Europe have chosen to deal with it by having higher taxes and more generous transfers to the less well off than we do, ensuring that their income inequality is much less than ours. Those lower-paid people laid off by your organization would have better unemployment insurance there, too. My point here is that the issues you raise aren’t really local to your organization. If we want to do something about them, resigning in protest from your nonprofit probably isn’t the answer.

Nonprofit Board Job Description #NonprofitBoards

When I think of "rock" stars serving as nonprofit board members I frequently wonder whether they serve in the same ways non-"rock" stars serve on nonprofit boards.  I figure these folks are really busy or easily distracted and am never sure just how passionate they really are for the organization's mission.  Agreeing to serve may be more about positioning or networking or some other appeal well beyond mission.  Now I recognize this is not always the case and the same could be said of the many more non-rock stars serving on boards. 

So it was with great interest I read the Deadline Hollywood article announcing the likes of Ryan Seacrest and Tyler Perry as new board members of an alrready large board of the Paley Center, an organization focused on something about media.  Lucky for me, the Deadline article also included a job description of the board members:

The Paley Center’s Board of Trustees is chaired by Frank A. Bennack Jr., and is comprised of leading executives in media and entertainment. The board offers advice and counsel in support of the organization’s mission to lead the conversation around today’s rapidly evolving media landscape. Members also provide input on strategy and operations, including public programs and exhibits, educational classes, workshops, and industry events hosted by the Paley Media Council.

The Los Angeles Board of Governors advises the organization on its strategic goals and Los Angeles programming calendar. Members also help the center forge new partnerships, expand its constituency, and increase participation from the media industry and general public on the West Coast.

 

Good enough?  How's this compare with your nonprofit board job description?

Nonprofit Board Changes #NonprofitBoards

While many ponder the steadily changing environment in which nonprofit organizations seek to survive if not thrive, I found what I thought to be sound advice in this Crains Detroit Business piece.  I found most helpful the following noting that board succession planning should be an essential activity.  Board succession planning is, in my opinion, the most often ignored task taken-up (as though) by nonprofit boards.  I understand this is hard work and requires in place a strategic plan and a deep analysis of: who is the current board; what should be the composition of a board that will serve the organization out 3-to-6 years; and, what activities need to be put in place to achieve this board of the future.  I should also note that while building a bench is critical for the whole board, so to is building an officer bench.  Succession planning should address both of these elements.

Here's snippets from the Crains editorial.

Board members need to come to the table more aggressively and contribute deeper strategic thinking, based on their business practices and on other board service examples they have witnessed. There have been too many instances locally of lack of board oversight, or where outgoing nonprofit CEOs have had their thumbs pressed too tightly on controlling their board, much to the detriment of the people they are supposed to be serving. To rectify that troubling trend, board members must:

Focus on sustainability and growth to further their organization's missions, with a greater emphasis on accountability in financial projections and reporting to their funding sources

Take charge of CEO succession planning, invest in growing talent internally and put resources behind education and training of executives

Take a much longer view of future board leadership by recruiting a younger and more diverse talent pool to the full board level, earlier every year.

Collectively, the nonprofit sector needs to do a better job of convening board members from various organizations much more regularly, to share best practices, trends in the industry, and to have more meaningful conversations about potential mergers and collaborations, which have been lacking in the sector.

A renewed focus on board roles and responsibilities, separate from, and sometimes in conjunction with nonprofit CEOs, will help everyone. Additionally, more aggressively identifying and placing future leaders on the board and staff levels will benefit every stakeholder impacted by the sector.