The new chancellor of University of California San Francisco's Hospital and Medical School is under attack because she is a big time investor. Being a big-time investor shouldn't be that surprising given how much CEO's of big hospitals make and the amount of money she has to invest doesn't seem to be a problem for her critics. What is a problem at first began with learning how much investment she had in the "sin" stock: tobacco. That's been resolved as she sold the stock and gave the proceeds (yes, there is still mucho money to be made from tobacco) to charity.
Now, the Chancellor is under attack for having lots of stock in drug and medical supply companies. On the one hand - this is likely what she knows. On the other hand, as the San Francisco Chronicle points out, through the work of the institution, she could face conflicts that could potentially net her even bigger bucks.
All this noted and I am confident that the Chancellor will straighten this out (I think I would just make a blind trust and recuse when necessary). But this situation does raise a bigger concern: How socially responsible are all the other nonprofits that have investments? Have the boards established policies that set parameters with a "do minimal harm" mandate? And what about board members? Do they recuse themselves when approving investments that might help them gain personally?
When those with financial resources serve as nonprofit board members, they should set policies to ensure that the nonprofit mission is part of the standard for how the nonprofit invests and policies need to guard against conflicts of interest when making investment decisions.