Nonprofit Board Crisis

Nonprofit Board Governance #NonprofitBoards

Aaron Hurst of the Taproot Foundation is a really smart guy who has accomplished some really amazing stuff.  But, In my opinion, Mr. Hurst has seriously short-changed the distinction between a nonprofit board and "for-profit" board.  

First, I do agree that recruiting wider and really reaching into the community is an important step for building a strong nonprofit board.  I do not agree however that one must be more selective in recruiting who should be serving on the nonprofit board versus at a business board.  As the nonprofit board are the surrogate "owners" for the public, I believe it is very important that individuals be selected for very strategic reasons while recognizing that each member must also make decisions that are both fiduciary and strategic.  And, let's remember that there are also a wide number of other opportunities for fully engaging the community in non-fiduciary governance matters that help inform, lead and sell the nonprofit.

I could debate other elements of Mr. Hurst's interview but I will leave well enough alone asking that we all recognize that nonprofit governance is as challenging if not more so than for-profit governance; requires equally smart and passionate people; and, in the end, both can make a significantly large impact on the way we live.

Here's the Inc.com interview with Mr. Hurst.

The Key Differences Between Running a Startup and a Nonprofit

Aaron Hurst of Imperative and Taproot Foundation highlights the similarities and differences between running a startup and a nonprofit.

 

BY PAUL GROSSINGER

 

If you are considering whether to create a non-profit or a for-profit, what should matter?

What are the key differences between running a for-profit and a non-profit, in terms of style, enjoyment, and execution?

I caught up with my friend Aaron Hurst who founded the non-profit Taproot Foundation, the world's largest pro-bono marketplace, 14 years ago, then turned around and created the for-profit Imperative, which aims to nurture purpose-driven workers, on the key similarities and differences between the two, and what founders should think about when making their choice.

1)      What are the big differences between running non-profit and for profit?

"I think one of the things that is very important in non-profits is community building. Early on, you want to get everyone you know of value involved early on. Whereas with a business, you are looking for strategic people but you are much more selective about who you approach. It's not grassroots."

2)      What is the key to building a strong non-profit versus a for-profit?

"The key to building a strong non-profit is creating a powerful board of directors; they are really your salespeople out in the world. With a startup, it is a much smaller role, primarily strategic and focused on governance. To illustrate, a typical non-profit board has 15 people, and a typical startup board is 5."

3)      Do you attract different types of talent to a for-profit versus a non-profit?

"The talent you are able to attract is very different. For a non-profit, you are able to do more with less money, because of mission orientation. But with startups, you can give upside so you sometimes attract a higher caliber of talent in the leadership."

4) Which do you enjoy more and why?

"I like different things. With the business side, it's easier to think of how to scale it, and I enjoy the shared sense of ownership. I also enjoy that startups have exits, so there is a defined endpoint, whereas non-profits are endless. But with non-profits, I love the board and working with people who are volunteering their time and energy into its success."

"I really enjoy the lack of red tape in a startup versus a non-profit, it's just incredibly refreshing."

5) How do you incorporate the best aspects of a non-profit into a for-profit startup?

"The most successful startups I see begin with a core change they want to make in the world, and profits come second. This is a key part of non-profits. The second is to build key stakeholders in your success.

"Ultimately, with a startup just like a non-profit, people need to feel like they are making an impact. The primary payment is in purpose, not money."

Nonprofit Governance Matters #NonprofitBoards

If one were to sum up a memory about the International Olympics Committee that memory would likely not be "that amazing organization can put on an amazing show".  

No, what will likely be remembered, according to the media includes: Doping scandals. Bribery allegations. Fears about Zika. Political, economic and corruption crisis.

And according to David Larkin, an attorney and sports corruption expert, the continuing scandals should be blamed on "a failed governance model, a broken system of sport justice and a troubled doping system."

Of course my eyes turn to the "failed governance model" which, according to my understanding, is centered around filling seats at the highest level with representatives from each of the countries engaged in Olympic Sports and assigning committee slots to these members.  This in itself is not a bad approach given a desire to ensure voice from far and wide.

But, it is clear with all these issues, especially doping, bribery and a failed ability to make even fundamental decisions over matters that can threaten the health and welfare of the athletes and the consumers, that interests appear to be much more personal and in the interest of what's best for any one representative and/or their respective country than the interests in the sport.  This would suggest then that perhaps a model which might involve all the member country representatives in electing non-country-specific representatives (with appropriate expertise and knowledge about matters that range from business to sports) would provide a forum where self-interest, ie conflicts of interests could be significantly reduced and the interest of good sport would be front and center.  Of course this would not singularly provide solutions to all the issues.  The committees would need to be sanitized as well and then, the standards and values of the Olympics would require a thorough up-grading to be applied to each country equally.  

Of course, like in all matters, there must be a universal "will" in place to produce a better outcome.

Nonprofit Board Duty of Care #NonprofitBoards

With little or no oversight, might be the lesson as is evidenced by the attempts, albeit tiny, of one nonprofit executive, ironically, charged with looking out for the victims of crime (too funny, no?).  And, one might think that a governing body of an organization looking out for crime victims might be hyper-sensitive to the possibilities from within but no, not in the case of Stephanie Mayweather who found it possible to eek out funds from the company checking account.  The lessons are obvious: checks and balances (if one writes checks, another should sign them OR at least there should be someone other than the signator to peruse the monthly expenditures and reconcile the accounts) plus annual audits (even when there isn't a lot of budget) are the only surer ways and means to prevent and/or catch internal theft.  While the "victim" agency is now out of business, once again a nonprofit board has failed.  Surely, had this nonprofit been any one of the board member's own business, it is unlikely that theft would have happened.  Prudence should reign supreme as core to a nonprofit board's duty of care.

Here's the Philadelphia Inquirer story.

Former crime-victim advocate charged with stealing $15K
Updated: MAY 12, 2016 — 1:09 AM EDT

Stephanie Mayweather, former executive director of the nonprofit East Division Crime Victim Services in Philadelphia, was arrested and charged Tuesday, May 10, 2016, with felony theft offenses.
by Julie Shaw, Staff Writer
A former executive of a Philadelphia crime-victims support group has been charged with stealing more than $15,000 in grant money and spending it on groceries, restaurant meals, gas, hotel stays, and college tuition, authorities said Wednesday.

Stephanie Mayweather, 52, the former executive director of East Division Crime Victim Services, was arrested Tuesday and charged with felony theft, the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office said.

After being arraigned Tuesday night before a Philadelphia magistrate, Mayweather, of Mullica Hill, was released on her own recognizance.

State prosecutors said Mayweather misused public funds between January 2010 and May 2013 while working for the organization. They said she stole $15,121.39 in grant money and used it to pay for items at grocery and convenience stores, restaurant meals, personal cellphone use, gas, parking, rental cars, and college tuition.

Mayweather was responsible for overseeing the daily operations of East Division Crime Victim Services, maintaining financial records and paying the organization's bills, prosecutors said.

A review of a checking account associated with the organization showed numerous charges unrelated to services for crime victims, authorities said.

Mayweather could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

The attorney general's Bureau of Criminal Investigations conducted the investigation with the Philadelphia Office of the Inspector General.

Amy Kurland, the city's inspector general, said Mayweather began working as executive director of the victims group in 1998. She said she did not know when Mayweather left but said the agency, which had an office at 3300 N. Mascher St. in North Philadelphia, closed last summer.

Kurland said she did not know whether the investigation was a factor in the closure.

The group was started in 1993 to provide free services to crime victims in the 24th, 25th, and 26th Police Districts, which include Kensington, Port Richmond, Fishtown, and parts of Juniata Park and Frankford. It received funding from the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office and the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency.

Victim services in that area are now provided by two other neighborhood groups, a police spokeswoman said.

Julie Rausch, the former executive director of the Anti-Violence Partnership of Philadelphia and now its grant director, said Mayweather's group was one of seven neighborhood victim assistance groups in the city.

"I think this is definitely an aberration," Rausch said. "I would hate for the reputation of Philadelphia's victim-service organizations to be affected by this in a negative way."

A preliminary hearing for Mayweather is scheduled for May 25.

shawj@phillynews.com

215-854-2592

@julieshawphilly

Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20160512_Former_crime-victim_advocate_charged_with_stealing__15K.html#zfD5EZSitJJpK007.99

Nonprofit Fundraising

So what's the problem to be solved?  In a video report by the Chicago Tribune, information about the for-profit firms that support nonprofits in "street" fundraising suggests that there's something amiss.  Even the title of the article, Profit for nonprofit, wants the listener to think twice about something.  But the article also reported that the nonprofits that contract with the firms that hire the street solicitors are quite satisfied with their returns and that this approach is more effective than any other in reaching new donors.  

So what's the solutions presuming the only "bad" here is that the firms doing the work are not non-profit?  I suppose that the nonprofits could make their own firm using all the techniques that their for-profit contractors have adopted.  But why mess with something that has already proven effective?  But once again, like the issue of executive pay and other similar so-called "outrageous" scenarios, the media is stirring a pot that doesn't need stirring.  Donors always have choice and the right to question everything about what a nonprofit does to achieve mission.  Yes, the nonprofit should be transparent and admittedly, not all are, but this type of story does no favors for anyone.

Here's the story from the Chicago Tribune.  http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chinews-profit-for-nonprofit-20130904-embeddedvideo.html.

Nonprofit Board Values #NonprofitBoards

The following Washington Post story highlights an issue that many nonprofit boards must face at some point: when is donor money "too" tainted?  The question, presumably answered through long and tedious debates, is about values and of course, just how much a particular board's values are worth in the pursuit of mission.  And, in the pursuit of mission, why doesn't "any means" justify the "ends"?  The story about the National Parks asks these questions while recognizing that the "public" via Congress has opted to not fully support Park preservation and service. What to do?  In the case of the Park Service, philanthropic sponsorship, corporate specifically, offsets the costs of doing its job.  Is it really so bad that Budweiser or Subaru or Starbucks sees opportunity to position themselves as supporters of the Parks while simultaneously positioning their brand and sales opportunities?  Is this really "selling-out"?  At this point I am not so inclined to think the answer is "yes".  I'm also not so imaginative that I can think of when these sponsorships begin to diminish what the Parks have to offer.  I do however believe that it is incumbent upon the honchos or perhaps even the Congress to establish guidelines for what does diminish the Parks - put it in writing and make it clear.  This is what I would expect of any nonprofit board who will likely face similar challenges.  After all, are we really offended  by all the corporations who have jumped on-board to support breast cancer research?

Here's the story.

Park Service and corporate advertising, a dangerous mix

 By Joe Davidson | Columnist May 9

 

 

National Park Service (NPS) rangers won’t be decorated with corporate logos à la NASCAR drivers, but the agency’s plan to allow advertising-like recognition of donors, including a beer maker, flirts with making national parks resemble ballparks.

The plan is outlined in “Director’s Order #21: Philanthropic Partnerships,” as my colleague Lisa Rein also has reported, and is designed “to create positive philanthropic partnerships with the NPS and on its behalf.”

Those partners are donors who boost the Park Service budget. But they often want more than a good feeling in return.

Although NPS expects the proposal, initially issued in 2006 and updated in March, to take effect by the end of this year, the impact is already evident. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report published in December carries a photo of a Park Service car adorned with this Subaru advertising — “Built to take you to the place you’ve never been.”

The Park Service is being taken to a dubious place.

“Large corporate donations exert a not-so-subtle gravitational pull on park managers increasingly dependent on these donors for their budgets,” said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “We are concerned that influence peddling will soon become a major recreational activity in our national parks.”

GAO also is concerned.

A 2009 GAO report lists several potential risks to NPS from these donor relationships, including:

• “Partner exerts undue influence over Park Service priorities”
• “Public confidence in the Park Service is compromised”
• “Parks and Park Service become commercialized.”

An indicator of the last risk, GAO said, is “Corporate donations made to parks or partners and tied to advertising.”

Already parks hoist banners with Budweiser beer and other corporate logos. Where will it stop? Can you imagine Disney presents Yellowstone?

While allowing corporations and other donors to get too deeply involved in any government service presents conflicts of interest, the Park Service apparently felt it was driven to this point because of inadequate government funding.

“DO21,” Park Service shorthand for the order, “is intended to empower NPS employees to take a more active role in the philanthropic process, but by no means requires it,” Park Service spokesman Jeffrey G. Olson said by email. “The realities of NPS funding or lack thereof mean that private dollars are going to be increasingly more important as we move forward and the expectations and responsibilities of the Park Service grow. DO21 simply recognizes this evolution.”

Does this evolution mean federal employees will become increasingly more involved with corporate pitchmen because Congress won’t adequately fund the parks?

Congressional appropriations for the Park Service fell 8 percent, adjusted for inflation, from fiscal years 2005 through 2014, according to GAO. Yet, “Fees, donations, and other funding sources … increased 39 percent after adjusting for inflation.”

Cozy relationships pay off, but at a cost – the credibility of a federal agency and its employees.

“For me as a federal employee and a taxpayer, I think it is unethical … to be advertising for a corporation,” said a Park Service superintendent who insisted on anonymity, fearing retaliation from superiors.

This employee said some NPS staffers are pressured to spend a significant amount of time fundraising and working with donors, who sometimes want special accommodations, such as access to park areas off-limits to the public.

“I was shocked when I read the director’s order,” the superintendent said.

Perhaps it should not be so shocking given the source.

The latest update on these donor partnerships comes less than three months after NPS Director Jonathan Jarvis was reprimanded. Michael Connor, the Interior Department’s undersecretary, said he would dismiss Jarvis from his role as manager of the Park Service’s ethics program after the director wrote a book with an ironic title: “Guidebook to American Values and Our National Parks.”

In February, the department’s inspector general reported the book was “published by Eastern National, a nonprofit that has cooperating agreements with NPS to operate stores and sell merchandise in numerous national parks.” Jarvis was not charged with receiving any money from the publication. Nonetheless, the inspector general’s report said Jarvis “approved Eastern National’s use of NPS’ ‘arrowhead’ logo on the book’s cover” and did not inform the department’s ethics office of his activity.

After reviewing the findings, Connor, in a memo to the inspector general’s office, said the department has “come to the conclusion that Director Jarvis did violate Federal employee ethics standards.”

Now, with his order, the entire Park Service is adopting Jarvis’s ethical standard — such as it is.

Nonprofit Board Values Matter #NonprofitBoards

While it should seem obvious, not all nonprofits agree with each other at least based on their nonprofit status.  And while one might think that nonprofits might universally have values that certainly don't result in doing harm, maybe this isn't really the case (ok, so for sure, it's definitely not the case).  But to reinforce how important and occasionally newsworthy it is when a nonprofit's values clashes with another nonprofit's values, take a look at the following story from Witchita, Kansas.  

On the one side of the story we have a "Christian" nonprofit that "promotes marriage at ages as young as 13".  On the other side of the story we have the Salvation Amy which strongly asserts that it is "steadfastly focused on ... advocating and protecting children".  Both organizations have been given the authority to raise and spend money to meet the needs not otherwise addressed by the public and business sectors.  But one, well, might not viewed by all, and certainly not the Salvation Army, is clearly espousing values that do no harm.

And doesn't this then raise the question: why is it that the IRS and the State can approve the creation of organizations that actually do harm.  Do the "people" represented by the IRS and the State government, have no uniform standards for what exactly "do no harm" means such that it permits tax exemptions for organizations that may well "do harm".  Yes, I recognize that this would require the IRS and State to declare sets of values to inform their authorizing nonprofit status, but aren't there plenty of other public bodies establishing values that inform the work they do?  And, while on the topic, doesn't it seem likely that the very institutions that are granting nonprofit privileges will eventually have to spend resources to make up for what harm may well have been done?

Here's the Washington Post article.

 

Salvation Army says no to event encouraging teen marriage

 By Associated Press May 6

WICHITA, Kan. — A Christian group that promotes marriage at ages as young as 13 won’t be able to use a Salvation Army camp in Wichita for a retreat for parents seeking marital partners for their children.

The Let Them Marry ministry wanted to have the retreat at Camp Hiawatha in November, The Wichita Eagle (http://bit.ly/1UF2UYB ) reported.

Janet Pack, director of development for the Salvation Army in Wichita, said in a statement that while the nonprofit inquired about holding an event there, the Salvation Army would “not allow that type of event to be held at our facilities” and “remained steadfastly focused on our mission of advocating for and protecting children.”

Laura Ohlman, who was helping organize and promote the event, said the retreat is still a goal, but isn’t sure when it will happen. Ohlman is the daughter-in-law of Vaughn Ohlman, an ambulance driver in Schulenberg, Texas, who runs the Let Them Marry ministry that’s devoted to “the idea of Christians focusing more on young, fruitful, Godly marriages - getting rid of some of so many of the obstacles that stand in the way,” he said in an email.

“Scripture speaks of the father of the son ‘taking a wife’ for his son, and the father of the bride ‘giving’ her to her husband,” Ohlman writes, citing passages from Jeremiah, Judges, Ezra and other books. “It gives example after example of young women being given to young men, without the young woman even being consulted, and often, in some of the most Godly marriages in Scripture, the young man is not consulted.”

 Under Kansas law, no one under the age of 15 can marry. Eighteen is the minimum age, although 16- and 17-year-olds can get married with parental consent.

Sedgwick County district attorney Marc Bennett said people who are legally married can be prosecuted for rape if they attempt to consummate a marriage without consent.

“As long as the laws aren’t being broken, they’re free to have this kind of a meeting,” Bennett said of the proposed retreat. “But if you cross the line and there’s a child who’s being forced into having sex with someone she doesn’t want to, then now you’ve gotten the attention of the state.”

Nonprofit Board Composition #NonprofitBoards

I often hear from nonprofit boards that they believe it is critical to have certain "professional" types as board members.  There is a common perception that these professionals will bring their critical lens to matters the board must regularly address AND, as often happens in un-staffed nonprofits, they will also volunteer their expertise to address a variety of specific and related needs.  The two most common "types" on the list: accountants and lawyers.  One should note of course that what is pretty much true in most professions is true in these two professions: lawyers and accountants frequently possess "sub-sector" expertise and experience and may not always be familiar with nonprofit policies and practices so there will be a learning curve.  

But the following Accounting News article is about a different challenge.  According to OngoingConcern:

CPAs, especially those who work at accounting firms, are encouraged to give back to their communities in one way or another. One of the ways that many give back is by serving on nonprofit boards. Many times when boards find out that a prospective member is a CPA, they are eager to make him or her the treasurer because no one else really wants to deal with money and numbers and stuff. When that person gets a reputation as someone willing to serve as treasurer, then other boards want them to serve as treasurer as well. 

Such is the case with Kara Myers, a CPA and former Warren Averett audit manager who is in a bit of trouble at the moment: 

Court records show that Myers is accused of stealing money from the Duncan Bridge Resort Condominium Owner's Association, Inc.; the Vestavia Vipers All-Star Team; and the Vestavia Hills Girls Softball Association. According to a recent filing, she was responsible for "a series of thefts" from the organizations' bank accounts.

Police seized a bunch of Myers and her husband's assets "including a bank account, a boat and two vehicles – a Mercedes-Benz and a Lexus." It's reported that Myers also served "as the past president and past finance VP for the Junior League of Birmingham and past treasurer and second VP of the Vestavia Hills Elementary PTO Board."  Those organizations might want to double check their books and every nonprofit in the Birmingham area should try a little harder when looking for their next treasurer.

A great cautionary tale!

Nonprofit Board Finally Surrenders #NonprofitBoards

There are a lot of nonprofits.  According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS), more than 1.5 million nonprofit organizations are registered in the U.S. This number includes public charities, private foundations, and other types of nonprofit organizations, including chambers of commerce, fraternal organizations and civic leagues.

So it shouldn't come as a surprise that not all of these organizations have what it takes to survive.  Oftentimes, the folks gathered around a table for mission must recognize that at some point they must make some really hard and final decisions.  And if for example, the organization has really important assets, they must find a home that will ensure that the organization's possessions continue in a new secure life.  Take for instance the "homeless" yes, homeless, Civil War Museum.  According to the staff person, 

        We're running on fumes," said Sharon Smith, president and chief executive, regarding the museum's finances. "There's virtually no money. We're down to a very small amount."

Smith said she believed a recently reached agreement with a foundation and the National Constitution Center would conclude the Civil War Museum's odyssey, which began in earnest about a decade ago and has included lawsuits, virtual closure, failed partnership efforts, an aborted relocation to Richmond, Va., a failed state bailout, a failed deal with Independence National Historical Park, and seemingly endless searches for a home.

"It's been like a soap opera," Smith said. "It's been going on for years and years."

The roots of the museum go back to the end of the Civil War, when Union officers formed the Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States (MOLLUS). In 1888 they founded a museum in Philadelphia, and over the years, Union officers and their descendants donated a rich array of artifacts, including plaster casts of Lincoln's hands and face, battle photos, Jefferson Davis' smoking jacket, battle flags, the first John Wilkes Booth wanted poster, bullet-riddled tree trunks, photos of black soldiers and regiments, diaries, letters, drawings, swords, and firearms - a seemingly endless stream of personal, quirky, evocative objects.

For years, the collection was housed in a stately Pine Street mansion. But internal squabbles broke out in 2000, sparked by dwindling finances, declining visitation, a failed affiliation with the Union League, and an incendiary proposal to move everything to a new museum in Richmond, former capital of the Confederacy.

The Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office stepped in and blocked the Richmond move. In the next several years, the Pine Street building was sold. An effort to move into the historic First Bank of the United States, located in Independence Park, fell through. The artifacts found homes in boxes, and the museum searched in vain for a home in Philadelphia, city of its birth.

You can read the full story in the Philadelphia Inquirer.  

Nonprofit Board Advocacy #NonprofitBoards

I have been recently promoting that possibly a 4th duty of nonprofit boards is that of advocacy.  Advocacy can come in all forms but the underlying theme: taking action to protect and promote an organization's mission and in turn, the needs of a nonprofit's constituents.

One recent example of successful board advocacy (I'm being generous in my assumption that one or more board members played some role in the result: according to the April 2016 Governing Magazine, Only 2 US states, and soon to be only 1 US state, tax Girl Scout cookies (that would likely be sales tax but I could imagine it could also be tax on unrelated business income (UBIT) if someone wanted to move the question.  Of course, regarding UBIT, the Girl Scouts would likely argue  (aka, advocate) that selling cookies is another learning/mission experience teaching girls sales skills, entreprenurism, customer relations...well, you get the picture.  Anyway, kudos to all the many Scout board members who played their advocacy role in ensuring that all the benefits of many folks' efforts goes back to mission.

Nonprofit Board Duty of Obedience #NonprofitBoards

The folks who administer the LSAT have a monopoly.  The Law School Admission Council (LSAC), NOT a membership organization controls pretty much everything that has to do with an individual getting into a Law School.  But a challenger has thrown down the gauntlet suggesting that the LSAC is not creating an offering that ensures that all folks have a shot at entering law school.  I would pose that the LSAC board should heed the warning sign raised by this challenge and pay attention to whether indeed there are those who are being left-out of the opportunities suggested by the University of Arizona College of Law.  

Effective nonprofit governance, fulfilling the duty of obedience, is to ensure mission is achieved and in the case of the LSAC that mission is to "ease the admission process for law schools and their applicants worldwide".  I would pose that where there is one University "feeling" the challenge there are others and so, it is on the LSAC board to stop to take a moment and consider whether any of its activities or offerings (like being a monopoly) are truly being conducted in the pursuit of mission.  The  LSAC must also recognize that the privilege of being a nonprofit monopoly comes with obligations that are perhaps not being met. 

Here's the Wall Street Journal to provide more details on the subject. 

By

JACOB GERSHMAN

May 2, 2016 11:19 am ET

 

University of Arizona College of Law’s decision to make the Law School Admission Test optional has put the school at odds with the powerful national nonprofit group that administers the exam and controls much of the law-school application process nationwide.

According to a Wall Street Journal report:

Arizona Law has started allowing applicants to take the Graduate Record Examination test in lieu of the LSAT, a move the school hopes will expand and diversify the pool of students considering enrolling…

Arizona Law, based in Tucson, says a study it conducted with the makers of the GRE convinced the school that the GRE is a reliable standardized substitute.

But the change of its requirements has drawn them into a clash with Newtown, Pa.,-based Law School Admission Council Inc., which controls the LSAT and acts as a key application clearinghouse for more than 200 law schools across the nation.

Last month, LSAC’s general counsel notified Arizona Law that the school’s new policy may violate its bylaws, which require that “substantially all of” a law school’s applicants take the LSAT.

The letter said the group is considering expelling Arizona Law from its membership, which would effectively cut off the school’s access to a crucial student admissions pipeline. The question of Arizona Law’s membership will be taken up at an LSAC board of trustees scheduled this week, the letter said. The board is made up of mostly law school deans and law professors.

LSAC members have access to a vast amount of applicant data that they can use to market themselves to students with competitive scores. Students also apply to law school through a centralized system operated by LSAC called the Credential Assembly Service.

Arizona Law disputes that it’s out of compliance. But the school is challenging LSAC’s policy more broadly.

“We believe that your proposed action unreasonably restrains competition in the law school admissions testing market,” wrote Arizona Law’s dean, Marc Miller, in a letter to LSAC on Friday. A spokeswoman for LSAC declined to comment.

“It’s been a one-party system until now,” Mr. Miller told WSJ. “Because they’re a monopoly, they have no one to push them.”

The LSAT is taken on paper and given four times a year. The GRE, which is run by the nonprofit Educational Testing Service and used by most graduate schools and business schools, is computerized and can be taken year-round.