Board Chairs and Board Leaders Mary Hiland, nonprofit leadership expert, interviews Mike Burns to discuss national research on board chairs and board leadership.
Inspired Nonprofit Leadership Mary Hiland, nonprofit leadership expert, interviews Mike Burns to explore nonprofit board stages of development. Mike offers that recognition of board stages helps establish achievable expectations.
"Effectively Raising Capital: The Board Chair & Executive Director Relationship" Mike Burns and Kevin McQueen, partners at BWB Solutions, and special guest Carla Weil, the Chief Strategy Officer from Capital for Change, the largest full-service CDFI in Connecticut, share their experiences effectively identifying funding sources and raising capital to strengthen an organization and provide more impact in low-income communities. Carla Mannings of Partners for the Common Good and CapNexus moderated the panel.
Share power to strengthen your board. Are your board leaders struggling to balance power among themselves? Are they not understanding their roles outside of the boardroom? If you answered yes to any of these, listen to Ep. 58 of our podcast as we host Mike Burns and Judy Freiwirth. Mike and Judy share their expertise, which is based on their Nonprofit Alliance study Voices of Board Chairs.
Making a Lasting Difference I've been struggling to finish "Making a Lasting Difference" by Graeme Reekie since first I received this book about 6 months ago from Wren and Greyhound. The press is British but I thought the subject would be universal for nonprofits.
Alas and sadly, this is a slow, tedious read filled with platitudes and almost helpful considerations nonprofit managers might want to consider when thinking about how to financially sustain their organizations.
I have generally posited that a nonprofit has 4 "pillars" that comprise its DNA: program, management and operations, governance and sustainability. M. Graeme offers five: involvement ((having community support); Income generation; Innovation ("how to nourish and encourage incremental innovation); Improvement (systems and structures); and impact measurement. So he and I don't operate from the same lens but his is certainly one perspective.
Making a Lasting Difference is constructed in four parts, 20 chapters and 211 pages. The possibly most innovative content is in Part 2, Chapter 2 where paradoxes, principles and practices of sustainability are presented. The paradoxes:
a. Change - only by changing can organizations be sustainability, sustainability does not mean sustained, and, the lesson is that an org. must learn, adapt and evolve purposefully. Here the author poses that an org has to have its act together to achieve sustainability
b. Octopus - organizations need to reach out in new directions to grow but growing in too many directions pulls them out of shape; diversified income does not mean reduced risk; and, an org must focus on core organisational purpose and structure. Here the author says that mission drift will not make you sustainable.
c. Yes/No the things that an organisation needs to survive can also kill it. Saying yes to everything is fatal; sustainability is about more than just money. Capacity and quality matter. Understand when, how and what to say no to. I would offer this is the "stay in your lane" paradox.
d. Efficiency - Efficiency preserves resources but can impair development. Organisations cannot evolve, adapt or respond without spare capacity. And orgs should balance strategy and scrutiny. They should invest in capacity building.
To all of this I just want to say: uh, ok and thanks for the amazing insight. No, not really! I would not invest in this book. You can better spend your time reading the Federal Register looking for grant opportunities (good luck given the current environment) or going through the Foundation Center directory or building an endowment from rich people who loved you (yes, this really is the key to sustainability). Making a lasting difference may be a good idea when thinking about long-term impact from what your nonprofit does - reading this book will not.
How many employees does a nonprofit board have? One (ok, so where there are co-directors, maybe two)! The exec/CEO serves as the agent for the board making a reality from a board's vision.
Sometimes however, the path the CEO takes does not match with the vision of the board. Sometimes the personality doesn't match. Sometimes the CEO may take a turn that does harm. When that sometimes happen it is on the board to act to "right" the ship and that action may mean separating the CEO from the organization. This action may be core to a board's fulfilling its fiduciary duty of care where risk management and compliance are first and foremost responsibilities.
So, over at the New England Center for Circus Arts it appears that the board has fallen out of love for two of its employees who as it happens, were founders. While I would pose it unusual for the board to be dismissing anyone but the exec (again, its one employee) I could understand the necessity of board intervention given the status of the employees to be removed at the Center. While the Vermont Business Magazine does not go into background regarding the "cause" of the removal, this is clearly a responsibility, fulfilling its duty of care, that the board believed necessary.
Whew - what a process this must have entailed but kudos to the board for doing what must be done?
New England Center for Circus Arts removes founders
Vermont Business Magazine The Board of Directors of New England Center for Circus Arts (NECCA) today announced a leadership reorganization of the 501(c)(3) non-profit. Michael Helmstadter, executive director, in a statement said: “The past 18 months have been spent working to resolve management and personnel problems to the benefit of the entire organization. The board of directors of NECCA has chosen a difficult, yet necessary decision to separate the co-founders of NECCA—Elsie Smith and Serenity Smith Forchion—from the organization as employees. We are bound to sound governance by law. We are also bound to protect the confidentiality of personnel matters.
"Needless to say, this is a challenging time for everyone. The board actions have been taken in order to meet our mission and students needs. They are why we, NECCA, exist.”
NECCA recently moved into its own custom-designed trapezium building in Brattleboro—the newest custom-designed circus arts trapezium in the country. The new building is the result of the efforts of the board and volunteer committees from the community who have worked diligently for more than three years to raise $1.3 million of the $2.5 million goal.
NECCA is governed by a Board of Directors under guidelines established by the 501(c)(3) regulations. Among their responsibilities is insuring adherence to the mission of the organization. The Mission of the New England Center for Circus Arts is to create a school, facility and community where circus arts are available to the general public and to inspire students of all skill levels, ages, abilities and aspirations.
As Charter Schools are seemingly in-line for greater support from the Federal Government (for sure, this support has been a long-time coming) there are functions within Charter Schools that deserve equal attention. One function in particular and the one with which I have deep, wide and long experience is Charter School governance. It has been clear to me that the double responsibility of running a school and running a nonprofit both on less money that most other institutions receive creates challenges unique to governing Charter Schools. Board recruitment, on-boarding (particularly challenging given the complexities), committee management, board meeting management - these are just some of the areas where extra work feels like it's never enough. The CEOs of Charter Board Partners and Education Cities put their thoughts about Charter School governing challenges and solutions in writing as follows. Their simply described answer: focus on recruitment and training. I would note that a particularly helpful framing around recruitment is the use of the term "talent". Talent to me acknowledges that beyond passion for mission, skills and experience and expertise matter and enable an individual to be effective. What is not noted but I would add: the training and development can take place within the governance structure ahead of actually receiving an appointment as a board member. Committees and Task Forces are excellent forums for developing talent and building passion.
Irvin & Gray — Reforming the Way We Govern Schools: Stronger Charter Boards Are Essential to Education Reform
July 10, 2017
TALKING POINTS
To improve educational outcomes, we need strong charter school boards, @carriecirvin & @ethanlgray say
Governance by charter school boards critical to accountability in education reform: @carriecirvin @ethanlgray
Education policy reforms are only as good as the governance systems that promote and monitor them.
Governance is often overlooked when policymakers and advocates design and assess reform efforts. But a new report by Education Cities examines how new models of public school governance, centered on autonomy and accountability, can improve educational outcomes.
In the spirit of autonomy and accountability, we believe it’s worth taking governance reform a step further by strengthening charter school and other education reform nonprofit boards. This work has the potential to become an essential component of city leaders’ comprehensive approach to improving educational systems and governance.
Specifically, city leaders should explore two things:
Make the recruitment of talented board members part of their talent work. The report rightly highlights the important roles quarterback organizations play in “growing and supporting talent pipelines,” which the report defines as teachers and school leaders. But board members should also be added to the mix. Effective board members bring experience and skills — finance, marketing, law, fundraising, human resources, or educational practice and policy — that are extremely helpful to running a strong school. They bring new networks and resources, as well as thought leadership and support. And most important, they have the gravitas to hold schools accountable.
Insist that charter school, CMO, and other nonprofit boards in their ecosystems invest in effective governance. We don’t expect teachers and school leaders to be excellent without training and support. Board members need training, too, and strategic organizations invest in strong governance.
Public charter schools, CMOs, and education nonprofits are an integral part of ecosystem-level efforts to improve equity and quality in public education. These organizations cannot reach their full potential or provide students the full measure of their value without boards that are strategically composed, diverse, and effective.
Yet charter school boards haven’t received much attention as the charter sector has grown up over the past two decades. Charter Board Partners is working to change that, working in partnership with quarterback organizations, funders, authorizers, state agencies, networks of schools, charter support organizations, and boards themselves. It’s paramount to ensure that boards have the training and tools they need, to think strategically about board composition, and to increase the diversity and preparedness of board members.
Charter school boards, with the ability to make autonomy real, are also where school-level accountability lives. They are responsible for ensuring that schools are well-run, financially sound, and academically successful.
Effective boards review data regularly and routinely, recognize problems before they threaten the viability or performance of the school, work collaboratively with the school’s leadership team, and ask the tough questions that drive results. Working collaboratively with the head of the school, good boards can see problems approaching and proactively take steps to pre-empt or rectify and take advantage of opportunities to push their schools to innovate.
Good charter school boards put in place the conditions that help schools attract and retain talented leaders and teachers, and remove barriers to improvement and performance. Additionally, they provide a buffer for school leaders to make tough decisions in the best interests of their students.
Finally, boards provide a fantastic opportunity for leaders to involve community members in education reform efforts in a genuine, meaningful way. The report describes the importance of ensuring that “key community members and ‘grasstops’ advocates are at the table.” Boards are a perfect opportunity for this kind of engagement, providing authentic leadership opportunities for community members and a chance for reformers from within and outside a particular community to work hand-in-hand on behalf of its students.
It’s time for the sector to fully embrace strong governance as an essential part of the infrastructure of education reform — in its budgeting, grantmaking, and policies. Its leaders, policymakers, and funders must invest in a talent strategy for board members and a professional development strategy to ensure that boards govern effectively and hold their organizations accountable for quality and results. Accountability in education reform depends on it.
Carrie Irvin is the CEO and co-founder of Charter Board Partners; Ethan Gray is the CEO and founder of Education Cities.
Compliance and risk management - the two words that pretty much (not exclusively) sum-up what is the fiduciary responsibility of a nonprofit board member and board (yes, wholly and severally).
So, when I find advice on compliance and risk management, maybe not universally intended for every audience but still useful, I like to share. Hence, check-out the following slightly lengthy advice from Financial Planner (written to Financial Advisors)
Advisers who seek to give back to their community — while also attracting new clients — often consider serving on the boards of charities or nonprofits.
However, just because the cause may be a worthy one doesn’t mean that there aren’t conflicts of interest or other pitfalls along the way. Advisers need to plan their work in this area just as carefully as they plan their clients' finances.
“Sometimes people think, ‘Hey, it’s for a charity; I’m not making money off this,’” says Dan Bernstein, chief compliance counsel at MarketCounsel, a compliance consulting firm. “But it still rises to the level of having conflicts and supervision.”
PROTECT YOURSELF It’s an area that is especially ripe area for fraud, Bernstein explains, and it’s important for advisers to take steps to protect themselves.
The SEC released a letter outlining where the most common deficiencies occur.
Larry Ginsburg, a planner in Oakland, California, cites a horror story about a colleague on the board of a charity whose head embezzled funds. Even though the adviser had recommended that all major transactions require two signatories, the board didn’t accept his recommendation — the signature of the embezzler was the only one needed. Despite the adviser’s explicit warnings, the board blamed him — and filed a complaint against him.
Now Ginsburg counsels advisers to protect themselves first. That means being alert to the possibility of worst-case scenarios and taking precautions to avoid them.
The first, and most important, step that advisers should take is to consult their compliance officers to define and clarify guidelines for the relationship with a nonprofit before entering into it.
For one, advisers should to consult their compliance officers before joining a board, to help define and clarify the guidelines.
The biggest dangers relate to situations in which their roles as directors or trustees of a charitable organization might create the potential for advisers to direct assets to themselves or their firm.
“Don’t get into charitable work, don’t get into positions on the board specifically to try to direct money to your own business,” says Martin Schamis, head of wealth planning at Janney Montgomery Scott. “That’s the sort of thing that gets you into trouble.”
Paul Auslander, the director of financial planning at ProVise Management Group in Clearwater, Florida, agrees. “You can’t get on the board and try to pitch their 401(k),” he says. “You have to remove yourself. You can review it as part of the finance committee, but you’ve got to bid it out and have other entities do it.”
Auslander adds some compliance officers are against advisers acting as treasurers or in any money-handling role requiring finance-related decisions.
AN OBVIOUS CONFLICT Never serve on a board at the same time as you are managing money or giving investment advice to that board. It may sound obvious, but sometimes distinctions can be blurred, especially if the organization is small or informally run.
For example, other board members may start asking an adviser board member occasional questions about investments or cash flow management, says Chris Stanley, general counsel for Loring Ward Holdings, a firm in San Jose, California, that consults with and advises other RIA’s.
“First it’s once a quarter, then it becomes once a month, then once a week,” he says. “Then it evolves into the adviser, rather than just being a normal board member, effectively providing financial or investment advice on an ongoing basis.”
This might create difficult situations. “It could raise questions about what are the rights and obligations of each party,” he adds. “What happens if the investments go south? Does the adviser get blamed?”
Chris Stanley is general counsel for Loring Ward Holdings, a firm in San Jose, California, that consults with and advises other RIA’s.
If an adviser’s charitable activities are in any way related or intertwined with a client’s charitable activities, Stanley says, the line between personal and business activities can “get very blurry.”
Even if a client is the one who brings up the idea of donating to a charity that he’s involved with, Ginsburg tells them that they need to know that he cannot in any way encourage them.
THE ‘POOR SCHMUCK’ Some conflicts may be widespread but not so obvious. Auslander points to the not uncommon situation in which advisers serve on homeowners’ associations.
“There’s the poor schmuck who’s out there helping his community by trying to make sure that people haven’t messed up their lawns,” Auslander says. “If he didn’t list it on his outside business activity form, and the broker-dealer picks up on it through other means — and, believe me, they’re pretty creative in finding things out — that guy’s going to have a problem.”
Being on a co-op board is even more dangerous, Auslander adds, because “a co-op board has real power.”
Most advisers say that such problems can be avoided with careful planning and disclosure and that the extra effort is worth it for the personal satisfaction that comes with the work.
Get involved for the right reason – to give back to your community and not just to fish for prospects.
It’s important for advisers to remember that they can provide an important service to nonprofits, Schamis says. They can help when looking to select investment partners or advisers, or looking for assistance in developing investment policy statements, as long as they recuse themselves if there’s a potential conflict.
Advisers can also play helpful roles in monitoring expenses and investments and providing oversight, Schamis says, “making sure that the nonprofit you’re a part of has selected a really good investment adviser to work with.”
He adds, “Your expertise is very valuable as an adviser to these boards, but typically it’s as a representative of the board, not as the board’s financial adviser.”
SERVE, DON'T SELL The most important thing, advisers say, is to get involved for the right reasons — to give back to your community and not just to fish for prospects.
“Frankly, everybody knows that most people get on boards to meet people and network,” says Auslander says. The key, experts say, is that you don’t go into charity work consciously scouting for business. Be content in knowing that if people meet you in the context of the nonprofit and they’re impressed with your work and your commitment, they’ll likely remember you.
“That’s a skill you develop over the years,” says Auslander, who is vice chairman of the Clearwater Marine Aquarium. “Eventually, you move up the ladder, and you become someone they think they need to know.”
There’s definitely a benefit in terms of publicity, visibility and opportunity for advisers who serve on nonprofit boards, but they should consider it as “an unintended benefit,” says Ginsburg, who recently completed a third term on the board of directors of the Alameda County Community Food Bank.
“If you don’t have charitable intent, don’t do it,” he says. “It’s that simple.”
Does nonprofit collaboration designed for a greater outcome for two or more organizations require that boards "give-up" on mission? Not inherently. Take a look at the following Crains op-ed for some consideration on what has really become essential to nonprofit survival.
Michael Bloomberg is known for his extraordinary support of New York City’s cultural institutions, including a recent mega grant to The Shed, a new West Side arts center. His gifts reflect a belief that investment in arts and culture can transform cities. At the same time, Mayor Bill de Blasio is executing the city’s first cultural plan in decades. His goal is to spread the city’s money as far as it will go, notably to smaller institutions in all five boroughs.
With income inequality such a prominent issue and financial resources for arts organizations increasingly scarce, it seems that combining the two mayors’ agendas would lift the city’s entire arts sector. Consider the challenges its institutions face. Large organizations must maintain substantial facilities, negotiate with labor unions, present global programs and cover significant payrolls. As president of the Brooklyn Academy of Music for 16 years, I know the difficulty of meeting these demands every week. Hoping to assure future stability, we also launched an endowment campaign in 1992. (BAM opened its doors in 1861, so it was 131 years before the concept of an endowment was even a possibility.)
Smaller organizations have it even harder. There are often no millionaires, let alone billionaires, sitting on their boards. And while they provide extraordinary service and innovative programs, they rarely receive extensive coverage of their work. That makes it harder to sell tickets and secure grants and donations.
Therefore I suggest that large and small entities join hands and together, seek eternal happiness—that is, balanced budgets, reasonably paid staff, brilliant programs, well-equipped facilities, engaged boards and full houses.
Perhaps a significant piece of large private-sector grants such as Bloomberg’s commitment to The Shed could be earmarked for comprehensive, in-depth partnerships with smaller organizations. For example, Merryl and James Tisch recently changed the usual paradigm of a large grant by allocating $20 million to the New York Public Library specifically for new education initiatives and related staff. Their aim was to make the library’s resources more readily available and relevant to a larger audience.
For its cultural plan, the city should provide additional money to incentivize quality creative partnerships between small and large organizations. These equal collaborations could include exchanges where representatives from each institution’s board actively serve on the other’s for the duration of the partnership. I would recommend commitments of three to five years, given that partnering is hard and it takes a while to find the best way to work together.
New York City should strive for tremendous camaraderie among our arts organizations, the city and private donors. As the cultural capital of the world, we should settle for nothing less.
Karen Brooks Hopkins is president emerita of the Brooklyn Academy of Music and is senior fellow in residence at the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.
What is the most important criteria for nonprofit board membership? passion for the mission. It is passion for the mission that brings citizens to a nonprofit board and a subsequent willingness to then do all they can to further that mission.
In my opinion, boards with seats that can only be filled by appointment, specifically by some public official, are a recipe for disaster. Simply put, if the only reason you are assigned to sit on a board is to look-out for the best interest of another entity or individual, there is little or no way you are going to be able to fulfill your fiduciary duty of loyalty - loyalty to the nonprofit whose board you serve that is.
Take for example what has just occurred in New Jersey (no, not Beach-gate)! The legislature, desperately seeking funds, made an effort to divert some reserves from the Nonprofit Health Insurer Horizon Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Unable to dig directly the legislature did the following:
Horizon’s board is currently made up of 15 members – including four governor appointees. S-4 pegged the ultimate composition of such boards – after initial terms expire – to be made up of eight board appointees, four governor appointees, and three elected by subscribers. (Nonprofit Times).
Who's loyalty with the governor appointees have? You know the answer and the answer will surely not be what is these appointee's fiduciary duty. Here lays the red flag for any nonprofit that has set-aside board seats to be filled by someone else other than the board itself. Back to my initial premise: the most important criteria for nonprofit board membership is passion for the mission. Period. End of story!