Nonprofit Board Crisis

Nonprofit Execs: The Great! #NonprofitBoards

Following my missive earlier this week about "unhappy" execs and how much nonprofit boards have a responsibility to make them happy, I want to offer the following praise offered by Steven Kast's OpEd in the LA Times.  Perhaps boards can include some of the merits as elements of their dashboard and annual appraisal.

                Steven Kast OpEd: the life of nonprofit executives

 

By STEVEN S. KAST

DEC 08, 2018 | 4:00 PM

  

 

 

 

Heather Livingston, Kasia Grzelkowski, Sanu Dieng, Bill Massey, Audrey Smith, Lynne Finding, and Arlene Armentor are a few examples of the executive directors or CEOs of United Way of the Virginia Peninsula’s 40 partner agencies who are my heroes.

During this holiday season and building upon the kindness initiative promoted by United Way, I want to highlight and thank this group of often unsung heroes in our community.

CEO (chief executive officer) is a fancy title but it doesn’t change the fact that these not-for-profit CEOs are ultimately responsible for whatever happens in their organizations.

For local nonprofit boards hiring and retaining the right CEO is a strategic move, and with the right leader, it provides credibility that the private sector can relate to. It helps raise the level of consciousness needed in the private sector, among board members, donors and the community in general.

 

The point being made is that our nonprofit executives are a necessary, highly organized and skilled leaders. But our not-for-profit CEOs motivate staff and volunteers to be all they can be, inspire board members to give and get dollars for the organization and promote the good work being done every day. They must also earn the respect of various neighborhood groups, and, time permitting, have a life.

A personal life is something our Not for Profit CEOs must work hard to achieve. Recognizing the importance of positive role models in the human services field and their impact on others’ lives, these execs are caught in a long-running dilemma — balancing the needs of family with the needs of clients impacted in large numbers by their organizations.

Their jobs get particularly tough because they feel responsible for hundreds, if not thousands, of lives every day, and in most cases all day. If they keep the job long enough, they will get those late night calls from staff — or even worse, from the police — declaring that one of their kids is missing, their client has frozen to death just yards from a shelter or a client died at their facility.

They receive word of their facilities having been broken into, or damaged by bad weather. They fear receiving word of a bus or van accident, and news of domestic violence, or the loss of people they work with and care for. A feeling of always being on call and always responsible stays with them 24 hours a day and seven days a week which is the toughest part of their job.

For the CEOs, it can be challenging to inspire a board of directors who are tackling their own personal and professional challenges to share the same level of commitment — giving, getting, and influencing others to raise funds. These resources are needed not only to operate but to endow the future needs or ensure reserves are available when needed. They manage multiple board members who all serve as leaders and in a few cases struggle to find their appropriate role with their organizations.

And by the way, let’s not forget about them being accountable and responsible for compliance, legal process, financial statements, fleets of vehicles, multiple service centers, satellite/outreach sites, collaborative partnerships and all the day-to-day functions that take up time and energy. Our not-for-profit CEO’s skillsets comprise of the compassion of a clergy, the financial acumen of an accountant, the judgment of an attorney and communication skills suited for varied and diverse audiences.

Our local heroes or nonprofit executives are accountable to a full board of directors, and ultimately responsible for raising the organization’s entire budget, as well as working within its parameters without the luxury of a full contingent of staff with degrees and appropriate skills more common in the private sector. Given the work they do, our CEOs often feel compelled to plan for succession by hiring and inspiring young talent in hopes they will someday carry the torch. If asked, most would not change their careers in any way.

They have my utmost respect and deserve the same from our community. Be kind and reach out to your favorite nonprofit executive today. If you are a nonprofit exec, thank you for leaping tall buildings for our community. The rewards are visible.

Unhappy Exec #NonprofitBoards

THE guy says he's "not happy" about what the Legislature has decided is the most effective approach to securing the border.  The concept of "not happy" moves me to ask aloud the question: just what is the responsibility of a nonprofit board to make their executive "happy".  And, is a board supposed to do EVERYTHING the exec says?  

When asked this way I hope you, as a board member, would answer "absolutely not!"  Sure, governing is not about making an executive unhappy but governing is about representing the best interests of the public or at least the consumers who are to benefit from what the nonprofit has to offer.  And, while the exec may have a variety of resources as well as skill and knowledge to advise direction, a board too brings multiple levels of knowledge and skills to the table to ensure that directions are meant to accomplish mission.  And yes, a board can disagree with an exec for multiple prudent and common sense reasons.  

Should the exec not be "happy" about their board's decisions they have options.  They can do what is asked voicing their disagreement.  They can provide evidence that the decision should be modified.  They can walk away - get another job.  

Making the exec "happy" is not the job of a nonprofit board.  Tending to mission is.

When the going gets tough..... #NonprofitBoards

The "going" has gotten tough over at the Congressional Black Caucus, an independent nonprofit whose board members are members of Congress.   An intern with the Congressional Black Caucus claims to have been sexually assaulted by the program director of the Caucus and, after getting a job with a congresswoman and admitting that she was suing the Caucus was later dismissed.  Since that time, the Chair of the Caucus has stepped down while the Caucus investigates to see what is the culpability of the congresswoman.  Kudos to the congresswoman for stepping-down while an investigation is conducted.  Equal kudos to the board members for not airing this event in public.  

Nonprofit boards should generally applaud and in times of trouble, replicate these acts of good governance whereby prudence and common sense are the rules of order.

Here's the Washington Post article on the subject.

 

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee to step down as chair of subcommittee and Congressional Black Caucus’s nonprofit arm, lawmakers say

 

By Elise Viebeck

January 23

A senior Democratic congresswoman is stepping down as chair of a House subcommittee and the nonprofit arm of the Congressional Black Caucus amid claims that she fired an aide who planned to sue the nonprofit after she reported a sexual assault, lawmakers said Wednesday.

The move, by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.), comes amid a growing backlash after an unnamed woman claimed in a lawsuit that she was sexually assaulted by an employee of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and that Jackson Lee dismissed her when she said she planned to take legal action against the group. The 13-term congresswoman led the foundation at the time.

Jackson Lee has denied through her office that she retaliated against the woman, who was identified as “Jane Doe” in court papers. The congresswoman declined to comment personally when approached by The Washington Post on Wednesday, saying her office would put out a statement.

Colleagues rallied behind Jackson Lee on Wednesday, alternately praising her decision to step down from her leadership roles and declining to discuss the situation with reporters.

[Lawmakers hail a new ‘sisterhood’ as more than 100 women take their seats in the House]

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) confirmed that Jackson Lee would cede the panel’s crime subcommittee gavel “voluntarily and temporarily” and said it did not reflect any culpability on her part.

“I am also pleased that Rep. Karen Bass has agreed to serve as interim Chair of the Crime Subcommittee until the matter is resolved and Representative Jackson Lee can resume the role of Chair,” Nadler said in a statement.

Former Congressional Black Caucus chair Cedric L. Richmond (D-La.) said Jackson Lee told colleagues separately about her plan to step down as chair of the CBC Foundation, which she had led since 2017. The decisions were first reported by BuzzFeed and the New York Times.

 

“I think Sheila made that decision,” Richmond told reporters. “The only thing I know is that she made that decision.”

The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, founded in 1976, is a policy organization that works to “advance the global black community by developing leaders, informing policy, and educating the public,” according to its mission statement. The group is known for its internship program, which awards semester-long placements in congressional offices to college students and recent graduates.

The Jane Doe lawsuit alleges that the woman was sexually assaulted by the foundation’s internship coordinator while she participated in the program in fall 2015. Later hired to work in Jackson Lee’s congressional office, the woman claims she was dismissed after four months because she told a supervisor that she planned to sue the foundation over the alleged assault. Jackson Lee had become chair of the foundation’s board in 2017 and remained in the position at the time of the woman’s dismissal, stated the lawsuit, which seeks damages “exceeding $75,000.”

Through her attorney, the woman declined to comment Wednesday on Jackson Lee’s decision to step down as board chair.

Pressure started building on the congresswoman this week as women’s groups backed the unidentified woman and withdrew support for Jackson Lee as the leader of a push to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.

[In #MeToo era, Congress isn’t prioritizing Violence Against Women programs]

“While Rep. Jackson Lee has been critical in shepherding VAWA reauthorization during the 115th Congress, The Hotline can no longer continue to support her leading VAWA reauthorization at this time,” read a statement Wednesday from the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

Nadler said Jackson Lee would still play a role in efforts to reauthorize the 1994 law, stating, “Collectively, I as Chairman, Representative Jackson Lee, and Representative Bass will continue working together to strengthen VAWA and to reform our criminal justice system.”

 

Jackson Lee had faced no public calls to cede her leadership roles.

Earlier in the day, House Democratic Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said he trusted that she would make the right decision but declined to comment further.

“I haven’t had the opportunity to talk to Representative Lee or be briefed on the lawsuit, but I’m confident that she will do the right thing,” said Jeffries, a member of the CBC.

Requests for comment from Bass (D-Calif.), who is the CBC’s current chair, and interim foundation president and chief executive Elsie Scott were not immediately answered.

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), a CBC member, praised Jackson Lee’s decision as courageous and said she could resume her leadership of the foundation board and the House Judiciary subcommittee “once everything is resolved.”

“Oftentimes, allegations that are made end up not being truthful in fact,” he said. “So I look forward to her having her day in court. We should give her a presumption of innocence. . . . They are simply allegations.”

Other members of the group circled the wagons Wednesday, declining to confirm or discuss the news.

“I don’t have any comment at this time. We haven’t had our board meeting yet,” said Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), a member of the CBC Foundation’s board.

“I’m not in a position to know much,” said Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), another board member, who blamed his busy schedule over the Martin Luther King Jr. Day weekend. “I was just telling one of my colleagues that I’m kind of out of things.”

Richmond said when asked about the case: “I really haven’t looked at it all yet. I’ve looked at it a little bit.”

Rep. Dwight Evans (D-Pa.), a third board member, said that before news of Jackson Lee’s decision broke, he had hoped that the process would be “open and transparent,” but he said he would need to study the issue further before commenting.

“Let me do my deep dive, and then I’d be more than happy to have that discussion,” Evans said.

A day earlier, The Post sought comment from two dozen lawmakers who are former CBC chairs or have sat on the foundation’s board. Three replied, all declining to comment.

Alice Crites and Julie Tate contributed to this report.

OnBoarding: The Key to Successful Board Engagement #NonprofitBoards

In my opinion the biggest failure of boards in engaging their members is poor or no on-boarding.  On-boarding: that deep and wide orientation that brings newbies up to snuff on what are is expected; what is culture; what is the business.  Bad on-boarding means board members just won't know what they have gotten into and therefore just can't be equal players with the currently seated members.  Note though, on-boarding begins with the first interview of a prospective member.

So what to do?  What follows are highlights of one set of recommendations.  But also take a look at my NonprofitPro Magazine column on the topic.  From Las Cruses Sun News:

A meeting with prospective board members providing them with information about the organization, the role of board membership — including required time and financial commitments, general financial information, and challenges to the organization is next. Usually the officers of the board and the executive director will attend this meeting. If the candidate wishes to proceed, they will be nominated and if selected, voted onto the board.

A tour of the agency (if appropriate), and a thorough orientation including a manual with many of the organization’s corporate documents, a list of board members and staff, programs and services, board job descriptions and opportunities to serve should be provided to the new board member before or very shortly after their first board meeting.

Some organizations have started using the board buddy model that pairs a veteran board member with a new member to provide guidance and ensure they feel more confident and comfortable asking questions.

A lot is expected from volunteer board members. Most new members join a board with little knowledge about nonprofits but with a passion for the organization’s mission. Commitment to year round board development including on-going training is crucial in preparing and supporting boards in their vital role "as the stewards of the organization’s mission and resources," reports the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits.

 

Fiduciary Duty of Obedience #NonprofitBoards

It is my firm belief that a nonprofit board that is not clear about its values and further, does not hold its exec to these values has failed in its fiduciary duty of obedience (commitment to the pursuit of mission).  The following story about the International Ski Federation where the exec has on multiple times expressed views that were counter to the members and presumably the board (reps of the members) is a case in point.  The board "presumably" representing the interests of the members though appears to me as the violation in question but only one.  As the "partner" to the exec, the board has failed to perform its duty to ensure that the exec is fulfilling his duty as an advocate but who knows what else.  And in reality, it appears that the board does not conduct a performance appraisal nor even establish annual goals although clearly I don't have the deepest information on this matter.  All-in-all though, it is clear that there is a systemic failure and the members would do well to call for a change at the top - the volunteer and paid top that is.

Here's the New York Times article that best describes what is going on.

 

 

Ski Chief Urged to Quit Over Climate Comment

By The Associated Press

• Feb. 8, 2019
• •  

DENVER — A group of winter-sports athletes and the world's biggest snowboard maker want the president of the International Ski Federation to resign after he spoke of "so-called climate change" and said he would rather deal with dictators than argue with environmentalists.

The climate advocacy group Protect Our Winters sent an open letter Friday urging 75-year-old Gian-Franco Kasper to step aside.

In an interview with the Swiss newspaper Tages-Anzeiger , Kasper said "dictators can organize (big) events ... without asking the people's permission" and that "from the business side, I say: I just want to go to dictatorships, I do not want to argue with environmentalists."

He also referenced "so-called" climate change, and when challenged on that, responded "We have snow, sometimes very much." He pointed to frigid temperatures at last year's Pyeongchang Olympics. "To anyone shuddering toward me, I said: Welcome to the global warming," Kasper told the newspaper.

Kasper subsequently apologized for his comments, saying they were not meant to be taken literally. When reached by The Associated Press via email, FIS officials said they had no further comment.

Protect Our Winters is a nonprofit formed in 2007 to combat climate change. Several dozen athletes are part of the alliance, which also includes scientists and business leaders.

In their open letter, which also included a link for people to add their name to the call for Kasper's resignation, POW said the Tages-Anzeiger story "confirms what insiders in FIS meetings have told us for years: that the leadership of the organization is unwilling to acknowledge scientific evidence that threatens the entire snow industry."

POW refers to studies that document the rapid decline of European glaciers , and to economic analysis that shows seasons with below-average snowfall lead to "decreased value added" of more than $1 billion and 17,400 fewer jobs.

"When we saw that, from our perspective, it was unacceptable to have anyone in a position of leadership in the snow-sport industry denying climate change," POW executive director Mario Molina told AP.

POW also decided to not accept a $10,500 donation it was set to receive Sunday from U.S. Ski and Snowboard through its volunteers, coaches, and athletes.

"As a sign of respect for them and the action they want to support, we are declining that donation and asking instead that Gian Franco Kasper be removed from his position," the open letter said.

Snowboard maker Burton announced it would write a check to replace the USSA donation.

"You can't be giving money to Protect Our Winters when the president of your federation is denying climate change and talking about how great it is to work with dictators because you don't have to worry about protecting the environment," Donna Carpenter, the wife of Burton founder Jake Burton, told the AP, referencing the relationship between USSA and FIS. "It's so blatant. He has to resign. It's not OK."

Kasper has been president of FIS since 1998. He also made headlines in 2005 for saying he didn't think ski jumping was "appropriate for ladies from a medical point of view."

Kasper's comments rekindled longstanding issues between the action sports community and FIS. When snowboarding was brought into the Olympics in 1998, many of the sport's leaders held out because they didn't think the federation — with its base in Europe and with little background in snowboarding — had their best interest in mind.

"Somehow, these organizations lose sight of who they're supposed to be advocating for, which is athletes," Carpenter said.

 

Nonprofit Governance Matters #NonprofitBoards

Nonprofits attempt to fill the void left by corporations seeking profits (meeting the needs of those who have the means) and government (meeting the lowest common denominator of needs).  But, more recently this paradigm has been shifting.  LLCs, private for-profits are being constructed as a vehicle by a select group of the uber-rich, who basically can afford the taxes, as their philanthropic vehicle.  The independence and other regulatory advantages are perceived as the rationale that ranks higher than the use of traditional foundations or community foundations or other philanthropic vehicles. 

One of the key missing ingredients, in my opinion, in the use of LLCs: accountability and independent oversight on behalf of the public.  Admittedly, the imposed governance structure of foundations does not guarantee oversight in the public's interest (e.g. Trump Foundation) but least there are consequences when those responsible for oversight fails.  No similar consequences exist for an LLC.  

So, despite best intentions, I'm not liking this new twist by the uber-rich.  But then, I'm not uber-rich.  To better understand what I am referring to regarding LLCs as philanthropic vehicles, read the following Vox News article.

Finding the best ways to do good. Made possible by The Rockefeller Foundation.

Laura and John Arnold aren’t quite as well known as Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, but they’re big names in the world of billionaire philanthropy.

Like Gates and Buffett, they’ve signed the Giving Pledge, a commitment by many of the world’s wealthiest individuals to give the majority of their wealth to charity. Last week, they announced that they’re restructuring the Arnold Foundation to fold it into a new limited-liability corporation, Arnold Ventures.

They’re not alone in going this route. Many modern billionaires have been choosing an LLC as they structure their philanthropy. It’s a move that lets them do more — and leaves some philanthropy watchdogs nervous. Here’s why.

Let’s say you’re a billionaire and you want your philanthropy to do as much good in the world as possible. We’ve previously advised you not to run for president (you can get a lot more political change for your dollar by investing it in your policy priorities) and to definitely set up a foundation. Like it or not (and many people have certainly raised concerns), foundations are highly successful vehicles for influence and flexible ways to do good.

But if you’re trying to do as much good as you can, a foundation might eventually not be flexible enough. That’s because private foundations in the United States are limited under most circumstances to making grants to recognized 501(c)(3) nonprofits — and there are lots of avenues of doing good which that doesn’t cover. (Future Perfect actually falls under one of the exceptions that, under some circumstances, permit foundations to make grants to noncharitable organizations — Vox Media is a for-profit company, but this department is funded by The Rockefeller Foundation.)

That’s driven many prominent philanthropists to structure their giving differently, through limited-liability corporations rather than nonprofits. That’s what the Arnold Foundation did last week, when it announced that it would be combining its philanthropy and political giving under Arnold Ventures.

Laura and John Arnold have a net worth estimated at $3.3 billion, mostly earned in John Arnold’s career running a hedge fund. They founded the Arnold Foundation in 2010 to begin the process of giving it away. They’ve made more than $1 billion in grants so far, which makes them stand out among billionaire philanthropists — not many have been giving away their money as rapidly.

Arnold Ventures marks a new turn for them, one that follows a recent trend among philanthropists. But critics say that the shift toward LLCs isn’t great for philanthropy. They warn that LLCs are less transparent. On the other hand, LLCs do have substantial advantages — and it’s possible to run one with the same transparency as is required of private foundations.

As a new generation of philanthropists begins giving younger in life and wants more control over how their money is used, we can likely expect more and more giving to happen through LLCs.

The limits of foundations

Foundations are broad, flexible tools for spending your money to pursue philanthropy. That’s why they’re so popular among both big-dollar donors and smaller ones.

Major foundations like the Gates Foundation make headlines, drive policy, and save millions of lives; smaller donors can use a foundation to make grants to projects they care about, too, potentially achieving the same effects at a smaller scale. In 2014, there were 86,000 foundations in the United States.

But there are a few avenues for changing the world that are legally complicated — or even impossible — to pursue through a standard foundation. It’s particularly tricky if you want to make for-profit “impact investments” in early-stage projects, like drug development, clean meat, or green energy. Foundations are also limiting if you want to make grants to political advocacy — pushing for policies or supporting candidates that you think are most likely to do good in the world.

It’s no surprise, then, that many prominent philanthropists like the Arnolds are interested in structuring their do-gooding operations differently. Arnold Ventures will spend its money through the Arnolds’ private foundation, their donor-advised fund (an account where you can commit money now, to donate at a later date), and a new 501(c)(4) that permits more direct lobbying efforts.

The Arnolds don’t do much impact investing — that is, making investments in for-profits doing social good, one common reason to prefer an LLC to a foundation. Arnold Ventures is instead restructuring to streamline its political advocacy work alongside its philanthropic work.

They’re not alone. Other big-dollar donors have taken the same approach. Laurene Powell Jobs has an LLC (the Emerson Collective), as do Pierre Omidyar (Omidyar Network), Dustin Moskovitz and Cari Tuna (Good Ventures), and Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg (the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative).

An LLC is not subject to all the same requirements as a foundation. It doesn’t have to spend down 5 percent of its assets each year, as foundations are required to do. It does not necessitate the same kinds of disclosures of public tax documents. And if any of the LLC’s investments turn a profit, the owners have discretion over what to do with it.

In a cultural moment of increased suspicion about philanthropy, the move from foundations to LLCs can prompt some concern — and some anger. “Charities fear they’ll see less grant making from LLCs than from traditional foundations, and advocates for transparency say LLCs can make it harder to track how the ultrawealthy are spending to meet their social-change goals,” the Chronicle of Philanthropy reported on the Arnold restructuring. (Kelli Rhee, president of Arnold Ventures, told Inside Philanthropy that Arnold Ventures will not decrease spending levels through their foundation.)

But there’s also a strong case for moves like these. Top priorities for the Arnolds, for example, have included retirement policies, pretrial justice reform, reducing the cost of prescription drugs, improving academic research, and stopping predatory higher education practices.

These are, inevitably, political goals. The best way to pursue them will often be supporting ballot initiatives that advance them, backing candidates for office who care about them, and pushing for legislation. An organization that is trying to fix our criminal justice system (a particular priority for the Arnolds) without engaging in any politics is going to be limited in what they can do — and many promising avenues to do good will be closed to them. An LLC allows for both grants through a foundation and politics and advocacy work through a separate organization.

“Such hybrid entities are still outliers in the philanthrosphere,” David Callahan wrote about the Arnold Ventures announcement, “But maybe the real question is not why some top donors are creating outfits like CZI and Arnold Ventures — it’s why more billionaires aren’t creating operations like these.”

Billionaire philanthropy has come under increased scrutiny recently, as part of growing frustration with inequality and the role of money in politics. That’s made philanthropists skittish. (Arnold Ventures declined to speak with me for this piece.)

If you’re a billionaire with limited philanthropic ambitions — or ones that happen to fit well with what foundations make possible — you might want to dodge the added complications of an LLC, which just sounds fishier to the public than a foundation ever will. But if you want to do as much good as you can, then in many cause areas, you will find yourself wanting flexibility a foundation doesn’t offer.

To the extent that billionaires like the Arnolds seem to have moved toward an LLC model for the right reasons — that is, because it’s the best way to solve important problems — hopefully they’ll meet enthusiasm, not condemnation.

Nonprofit Proliferation To What Extent #NonprofitBoards

Normally I am the first in line to say that there really are not too many nonprofits.  I believe that the level of need in the world and the varying approaches needed to address these needs may indeed warrant a panoply of nonprofits.  

But wait, sometimes there actually is duplication of services and donors just didn't have all their facts and neither did the boards who started-up the duplication.  Take for instance Early Reading Matters.  This group teaches teachers how to teach reading for an end goal of improving childhood literacy.  Sounds like a great idea doesn't it?  But have you not heard of my former client who has many years of success doing similar if not identical work: Reading Recovery.  Reading Recovery has been doing this work for more than 20 years having established a tested and proven methodology as well as a large national network of providers.  But is it possible that Early Reading Matters has really come up with a new and more innovative approach OR there really is room in the donor marketplace for another nonprofit with a similar mission?  Maybe is the answer.

Donor in particular, and it's their job, can be quick to judge and discern that a market place is too crowded or that there are big gaps.  Sometimes they are correct and other times not so correct.  There may well be room in the marketplace for multiple groups attacking a commonly agreed upon problem in both similar and differentiated ways.  

Boards really are responsible for ensuring they understand the market demand.  This is part of what they are called to do as being strategic.

Board Term Limits #NonprofitBoards

What shall it be: 8 years or 12 years or no limits as is the standard now in Florida for school boards?   While I acknowledge school boards are not identical to nonprofit boards they hold many similar responsibilities and conduct many similar activities.  The question remains: do term limits have value noting that there remains many boards I see currently who do not have in their by-laws or do have but essentially ignore, term limits.

 

One Florida legislator cites that "she had seen the success of term limits spurring innovation on nonprofit boards" (Florida Politics).  Is it true that board limits "spur innovation"?  Is this why these are a must?  I would propose a maybe on this rationale given that innovation is very dependent on who is around the table and that with or without limits, innovation may or may not occur.  I myself generally endorse term limits as both a way to introduce fresh "blood" to the board and extend the organization's/board's reach into the community and particularly for enhancing diversity of representation and thought.  Overall, I echo the "for"rationale described in this blog by Bea & VanderBerk which also offers the "against" rationale:

Those who argue for term limits typically cite the need to bring “new blood” onto the board. New directors bring a freshness of insight, and changes in the operating climate may require new skill sets. A systematic rotation on and off the board lessens the likelihood that a board becomes tired and loses vitality.

Those who argue against term limits cite the need for institutional memory and worry about the loss of dedicated volunteers who have a proven track record of board participation.

The IRS tends to favor term limits on grounds that a board with static membership can adopt unhealthy insider attitudes, and begin to govern out of self-interest rather than for the good of the organization. State charity regulators often voice similar concerns. But there are no laws – either at the state or federal level – that mandate term limits.

Bottom line: term limits have more positives than the absence of term limits.

 

 

 

Organization plans on being the most effective and productive ...we can be.” #NonprofitBoards

Sander S. Florman, a transplant surgeon and chairman of LiveOnNY’s board of directors, said the organization plans on “being the most effective and productive OPO we can be.” Yup, while almost losing but then recovering its funding following clear evidence that the organization was just not doing it's job, this is the statement by the board chair.  LiveOnNY, an transplant recovery organization did not pass the test for effectiveness or productivity and yet, for any number of inexplexplicable reasons (likely, politics) has saved his contract with the Feds.  A yippie for them may not be a yippie for the public, but there you have.  One kudo though should be given to the board chair who stood up to provide a response and a plan demonstrating some understanding of what is necessary to go forward.

Here's the Washington Post story that describes what happened.

 

National

Despite low performance, organ collection group gets new federal contract

By Kimberly Kindy and

Lenny Bernstein

February 4 at 7:56 PM

Federal regulators in June took the unusual step of announcing they would shut down a New York-based nonprofit organization responsible for recovering human organs for transplantation. On Friday, regulators reversed that decision even though the organization, LiveOnNY, has received poor performance scores for nearly a decade and its organ recovery rates remain among the lowest in the nation.

LiveOnNY, the second largest of 58 federally designed organ procurement organizations, confirmed Monday that its contract with the federal government was renewed. The organization declined interview requests and said it would not comment on how it plans to boost organ donation in the New York region.

In a statement, federal regulators said the new agreement with LiveOnNY provides “more frequent oversight” and requires the organ procurement organization, or OPO, to increase its organ recovery rates substantially before the four-year contract expires in 2022.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which is responsible for oversight of the nation’s OPOs, said it decided to keep LiveOnNY open to “lower risk” of disruptions to “patients waiting for organs” while it works with the organization to improve performance.

CMS has been criticized by transplant surgeons, medical researchers, industry officials and some members of Congress for failing to create an oversight system that holds OPOs accountable for their performance in acquiring organs for transplant.

Sen. Todd C. Young (R-Ind.) said Monday the decision by CMS shows weaknesses in the system and that he will ask the agency to explain how LiveOnNY will reform itself. “This is yet another example of the need for greater oversight and accountability in our organ donation system,” Young said.

Sander S. Florman, a transplant surgeon and chairman of LiveOnNY’s board of directors, said the organization plans on “being the most effective and productive OPO we can be.”

The decision comes less than two months after The Washington Post published an article about LiveOnNY that showed the organization has been one of the nation’s lowest-performing OPOs for nearly a decade.

LiveOnNY has been short-staffed at critical moments, and interviews and records show that transplant coordinators have shown up late or not at all to speak with grieving families. When they do reach relatives, their approach is sometimes indelicate, causing families to delay signing donation consent forms or to refuse to sign them altogether.

This isn’t the first time LiveOnNY has successfully fought a threatened shutdown. In 2013, CEO Helen Irving wrote to the White House and argued that CMS’s performance measures were flawed and should not be used to decertify them or any other OPO.

Irving pointed out that the data CMS uses to evaluate the organizations is “self-reported” by the OPOs and “unaudited” by CMS or any other outside group.

“Clearly, this type of ‘evidence’ fails to meet any reasonable definition of ‘empirical,’ ” she wrote.

The Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, the industry’s trade group, also took issue with the “self-reported” data, telling White House officials that the “accuracy and consistency of data cannot be assured.”

CMS allowed the organization to submit a performance improvement plan and continue operating.

In June, when CMS threatened decertification again, it took an extra step, sending the OPO a letter saying it “will not renew its agreement with LiveOnNY” when the contract was set to expire Jan. 31. CMS also rejected LiveOnNY’s request for reconsideration in December.

LiveOnNY appealed and entered into settlement negotiations with CMS. Under the new agreement, LiveOnNY agreed that it will not fight decertification in 2022 if it fails to meet the agreed-upon goals.

A longtime Department of Health and Human Services official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person is not authorized to speak to the media, said that a key problem was CMS’s performance measures, which still rely on self-reported data and are not rigorous enough to be used to hold LiveOnNY accountable.

“It’s based on a metric that is not effective,” the official said. “It’s just another indication that they are unclear on what they are doing when it comes to providing oversight to the OPOs and it’s continuing to provide confusion in the field.”

A Post analysis published in December showed the transplant industry could more than double the number of organs available for transplant each year if it expanded efforts to collect and use organs from older and traditionally excluded donors, such as people with hepatitis C.

About 75,000 kidneys, livers, lungs, hearts and other organs could be donated each year, according to a Post analysis of death records — more than double the number transplanted in 2017. That number would essentially wipe out the current U.S. waiting list for organs, which contains nearly 115,000 people. Last year, 31,608 organs from deceased donors were transplanted, but each day 33 people die waiting.

The chronic shortage of transplantable organs has spawned lawsuits by lung and liver patients — many who are on waiting lists in New York. One of the patients, 38-year-old Wilnelia Cruz, died last year while waiting for a liver transplant in New York.

In a September interview with The Post from her hospital bed, Cruz said she was told she could get on waiting lists in other states where organs are more plentiful. However, Cruz said she couldn’t afford the travel costs.

“Money should not be a factor for being able to live and see your children grow,” she said.

Race to Lead: Women of Color #NonprofitBoards

In what should be an embarrassment for the sector that fills the void between greed and lowest common denominator of interest, and in theory hold the value to do no harm (admittedly, there are likely many nonprofits who from their actions do not hold this value), the today released report by the Building Movement Project should help serve as a catalyst for improvement.  Race to Lead: Women of Color in the Nonprofit Sector provides lot of stats and understanding on how the nonprofit sector addresses race and gender in its ranks.  I'm just clipping the basics here and there's but nonprofit boards should schedule and use this material for multiple generative conversations to consider policy and action, now!

Race to Lead: Women of Color in the Nonprofit Sector

Race to Lead Women of Color in the Nonprofit Sector   The Building Movement Project has just released Race to Lead: Women of Color in the Nonprofit Sector, which examines the impact of both race and gender on the career advancement and experiences of women of color working in the nonprofit sector. From survey data, write-in responses, focus groups, and interviews, the report highlights the intersection of barriers facing women of color in nonprofits. The report also includes a section focused on responses from Asian/Pacific Islander, Black, Latinx, Native American, and transgender women of color.

Key Finding #1: Racial and gender biases create barriers to advancement for women of color.     Key Finding #2: Education and training do not provide equity.