Nonprofit Board Crisis

Nonprofit Board: Approve Policy to Mislead the Public?

I think it was a little more than a year ago I reported on some serious issues with the Better Business Bureau in California.  It appeared at the time that the Bureau was tying in its fees with its rating system -- in essence, the more a member paid, the better a rating.  Of course this is just wrong and leading consumers astray -- counter to the basic reason for the BBB's rating system in the first place.  Interesting sustainability plan and one which raises the question: did the Board of Directors actually sign-off on this practice?  Maybe so if the board members' organizations get a discount and good rating.  Please say this isn't so, as that would be a serious conflict of interest.

Anyway, I never got the conclusion on this assessment but there's actually someone who follows what goes on with the BBB around the country.  His conclusion: California isn't the only place where BBB practices a pay-to-play scheme and he's committed to stopping the practice.

So, if you would like to follow along, check-out this guy's site: http://www.betterethicsbureau.org/

Nonprofit Boards Results Focused: One Set Of Questions

I have of late been more frequently urging nonprofit boards to be results focused as one of their primary governance tasks.

I heard today one set of results-focused questions I thought worth offering for a nonprofit board's consideration.  The questions come from a donor during a periodic check-in.

The questions:

How many individuals have been "touched" by the nonprofit?
(Although I think this an output more than an outcome question but it's still results from the organization's activities.)

How many institutions have been changed or affected?

How many policies have been changed beneficially?

How much money has been leveraged? (Referring to partnerships; presuming partnerships, be they joint efforts or shared resources, lead to bigger outcomes.)

 

Nonprofit Board and Good Policy: The Case of WikiLeaks

The conversation about the recent distribution by WikiLeaks of diplomatic correspondence has me thinking about governance, public and nonprofit. 

WikiLeaks has a mission: transparency.  Transparency is I believe a critical element of good governance, be it public or nonprofit.  Transparency goes along with the values of trust and understanding.  These are also important elements that result in great agreements and commitments. 

I for one though would like to be a fly on the wall when the WikiLeaks Board of Directors meets to determine the go/no go of leaks like US diplomatic communications when they are of such magnitude.  I would really appreciate learning how strategic the Board really is with these types of decisions and/or how much policy was in place to avoid staff having to consult to determine a go/no go action.  I would also like to learn what information the Board considers when it has no policy in place to guide its staff and must think about the impact an action like this. And, I would welcome knowing if it's always "mission first" that guides the Board and staff and whether there are ever dissenters and how that conversation is managed.  But most importantly, I would like to be assured that it is the Board of Directors that makes these decisions or at least provides clear policy for these decisions and not staff.  While I don't really value a nonprofit board that must decide about every decision, I do value a board that has good guiding policy in place with criteria for when it must act.

Nonprofits: How much do they really owe the community in which they dwell?

I do not have an answer to the question of how much a nonprofit owes the community in which they dwell.  I can argue of course that just by its simple existence, a nonprofit provides a number of benefits to its community, and that those benefits, both tangible and intangible justify their tax exemptions and their lack of a direct financial contribution to their community government.

A town in Michigan facing tough times has turned to fundraising.  But instead of trying to raise monies from its residents, the town has appealed to its nonprofits, a most interesting strategy.

Will this answer the question of how much a nonprofit really owes?  No, certainly not.  But the subsequent discussions by the respective nonprofit boards should move them to think about how to articulate and/or measure their impact and perhaps about how they can better educate their town and its citizens about those contributions.

Go here to see the full story.

Nonprofit Board Members & Execs Share About Themselves

With nearly 1000 execs and just under 800 board members responding to this year's Board Source 2010 nonprofit governance survey, some  insights about nonprofit governance may be gleaned.  I was mostly surprised by the number of board members and execs who think unfavorably about their boards.  I was least surprised by how non-diverse the boards are.

Seems to me that execs and board chairs need to do some work on both counts: helping board members to better appreciate and understand what they are getting right or the impact they are having, AND fostering deeper conversations about why being so white is not really ok, particularly if your customers don't "look" like you.