According to the Association of Governing Boards, the nonprofit fiduciary duty of obedience "refers to the board member’s obligation to advance the mission of the (nonprofit). It also includes an expectation that board members will act in a manner that is consistent with the mission and goals of the institution. Failure of this duty can result in a loss of public confidence in the (nonprofit).
But just how far should a board go in fulfilling its duty of obedience? I will pose that what has gone on at the Martin Luther King museum tests the answer to this question. A new civil rights museum is opening up in Atlana, Georgia, grounded in the work of Dr. King. This museum hopes to revive the focus on Dr. King's work and the broader subject of civil rights. Toward this end, the museum sought to gain access to Dr. King's works which were physically and intellectually owned by members of the King famiy. The Atlanta museum "paid $11.5 million to the King family for the right to exhibit Dr. King's papers. Atlanta businesses and civic leaders gave an additional $22.5 million to the family to allow the papers' display (Wall Street Jounal). The King family retains the intellectual property rights to the papers meaning that if the Atlanta museum wants to reproduce any of the materials, it must pay additional fees.
So, while it appears that the King family and their foundations are just seeking financial opportunity, I would suggest that the King family could be fullfilling their respective duties of obedience, ensuring that Dr. King's work is advanced to the fullest. As caretakers of Dr. King's work, Is this not the family's obligation: to ensure that Dr. King's work is advanced? I think so and as such, a substantive price tag serves to remind the holders of the physical property that what is now in their care must be preserved and used in ways that continue to support the family's own mission.