Throughout the US there are nonprofit boards whose membership may include political appointees. So what you say? I believe there can be big "so whats" including:
- these members do not always place the interest of the nonprofit above the interests of, let's say, their political masters;
- limited "ownership" of the nonprofit mission -- it's often not these appointees' passion;
- limited commitment in time or money -- in my experience, these members rarely make a financial contribution, may not ask friends or associates for money, and may not even come to meetings often sending proxies which the by-laws have been designed to accomodate knowing the reality (also noting that often times the proxies may care more about mission which can turns out well for the nonprofit).
We also know, from a variety of examples, that some nonprofits have even been established just to serve the financial interests of a politician. Take for example former Pennsylvania State Senator Fumo (whose exploits I've chronicled about in this blog). But apparently, we don't always learn from our mistakes.
There's currently a proposal, again in Pennsylvania, to reform the state gaming act. What's this have to do with nonprofits you ask? According to the Philadelphia Inquirer,
...a 1 percent tax on table-game revenues would be established to go to the counties in which casinos are operating. But, in Philadelphia, the revenue from this tax would go to a nonprofit that would be created and run by people appointed by O'Brien, Sen. Larry Farnese, and City Council. The money could be used only in the neighborhoods proximate to the casinos.
Now of course, the good news is that it's conceivable that millions, even hundreds of millions could result from this tax. The bad news is, that, again, as we have seen with Fumo as a prime example, nonprofits created by legislators and then governed by legislative appointees may just not be the best idea. It's really not good governance and not consistent with the nature of nonprofits.
Now, if the legislature wants to set up a special public entity to manage, there are issues, but it is then not pretending that the effort is really "owned" by those who passionately care about some cause. On the other hand, don't such entities already exist?