Nonprofit Board Crisis

Nonprofit Board Conflict of Interest #NonprofitBoards

Ordinarily I like to find stories in the news that exemplify when a nonprofit board has failed.  Conflicts of interests are one of those areas where failure comes pretty regularly.  But today I have found a good thought piece that, if shared among board members ahead of a generative conversation that can subsequently lead to policies and procures about conflicts of interest.  And yes, I know by now that almost every nonprofit board has a conflict of interest policy and requires an annual signing of a statement that each board member will look out for and acknowledge when/if a possible conflict is facing them.  Just the same I would offer it can't hurt to take some time and ensure all is in order.  The article, from The Legal Intelligence (yes, quite a name) discusses all things conflicts of interest and offers guidelines.  One particularly interesting item I found was a standard of reference regarding when or what is a conflict of interest.  This is referred to as the "front page test" which, according to the piece asks:

if a member of your organization’s actions and decisions for the nonprofit were splashed on the front page of a newspaper, would the average person identify a conflict?

Would it be easy for everyone to recognize how the board member gave preferential treatment to his or her own interests ahead of the charity’s?

 

Thought for the day....

Nonprofit Board Fails #NonprofitBoards

A couple of things I've learned over my 35+ years as a nonprofit organizational development consultant:

1. nonprofit boards will do almost anything to avoid firing an executive - no matter how much they personally dislike the individual - and as long as some major crime is not committed by that person.  I suppose it's equally fair to say, conflict avoidance is always the first rule of every thing that needs to be done that may be hard
2. nonprofit boards think they need to have all the seats at their table filled - there is such a thing as "too few" members but rarely can anyone say why but, members will do what they can to fill their seats 
3. nonprofit boards want to be prudent as they fulfill their responsibilities, presuming they know these, but rarely do they have the data that would help them know what prudent looks like
4. nonprofit boards don't always have the policies and procedures in place to guide them when "bad" things happen.  
5. Finally, nonprofit boards do not always learn from their mistakes.

The following story from the Portland Tribune reinforces what I've just outlined.  The board of this nonprofit has experienced, in large part, thanks to itself, some difficult times.  Can they recover - that's the remaining question.

Nonprofit seeks stability after firing ex-leader

Nick Budnick

 

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

 

Harassment complaint led Black Parent Initiative board to resign, and later to Charles McGee's ouster.

 

CONTRIBUTED - Charles McGee

When sexual assault allegations went public against Portland nonprofit leader Charles McGee on Feb. 6, the board of Portland nonprofit Black Parent Initiative was cautious, placing him on leave pending an investigation.

But one week later, despite his "unequivocal" denial of the public claims, they fired McGee when they learned of a separate, non-public complaint of sexual harassment by Jhaizmine Smith, who was then 24, the Portland Tribune has learned.

The problem? BPI's volunteer board members were never told about Smith's November 2015 complaint until long after she'd quit. After investigating, all five board members resigned in December 2016 over McGee's handling of the matter — or lack thereof.

And then the new board members recruited to replace them were never told about any of it.

Smith's story shows the difficulties that victims of alleged harassment can face at a small nonprofit. It also adds to the turmoil around BPI, even as members of the board grapple with keeping their organization's services to the community going.

Smith, now 26, had already contacted the Tribune about McGee before the assault allegation made by another woman became public. The Tribune has reviewed documents concerning her complaint and substantiated key aspects of her story with acquaintances as well as the current and former BPI boards.

COURTESY PHOTO - Jhaizmine Smith, a single mother, says she felt 'targeted' by Charles McGee soon after joining BPI.

McGee and his lawyer, Edie Rogoway, declined to provide responses to questions or otherwise comment.

The BPI board announcement of McGee's termination had referred to Smith's complaint without naming her. After being contacted by the Tribune with Smith's story, board members issued another statement.

"The Board is committed to making sure nothing like this can happen again. It is the Board's top priority that BPI is a safe, comfortable, and supportive environment for everyone connected to the organization, in addition to continuing to serve the community."

Smith said changes need to be made to ensure no more behavior occurs that is "just wrong.

"I would not subject myself to that kind of treatment from any organization, no matter their status," she said, of her decision to quit.

Confided in mentor

When Smith entered the Americorps Vista national service program in the summer of 2015, she hoped it would help her enter the working world and also help her financially. Most importantly, she wanted the chance to work at BPI, a group that supports low- to moderate-income African-American families with birth assistance, parenting resources and advice on navigating the daunting education bureaucracy.

For Smith, the assignment was personal, as she had benefited from similar social work. A graduate of Jefferson High School, vice president of her class and three-sport athlete, she participated in a mentoring program through Self Enhancement, Inc.

"That's one of my superstars, man," said David Allen, her mentor at SEI. Despite adversity in her life, he added, Smith "kept fighting, she's very tenacious, and just a hard-working young lady."

Allen confirmed that Smith confided with him about the alleged harassment on multiple occasions. "I trust and believe that anything that she said happened, happened," he said. "She's very credible."

A former beauty contestant and member of the Jefferson High Rose Festival Court, Smith says she immediately drew attention from McGee, the cofounder and president of BPI, after beginning there in August 2015.

He at first commented flirtatiously on her appearance and that she was a single mother without a man to help support her, she said. But the comments got worse when nobody else was around.

The message was, "where's the man in my life," she recalled. "It progressed to (McGee saying) 'I've been told I've done great things with my body.'"

Smith said she immediately told him his comments were inappropriate, and McGee would always respond that she had misinterpreted him.

But he did not stop, seemingly viewing her resistance "as a challenge to continue to pursue," she said.

Within the first six weeks of her time at BPI, he talked to her about taking a permanent job there. On guard from his earlier comments, she said she would prefer to finish out her Americorps term and then decide.

Then, at a four-day staff retreat in mid-October at the beach in Seaside, she said she noticed McGee following her as she headed back to her room late one night.

Nervous from his past comments, she urged him to go back to the group. He didn't. Concerned for her safety, she sat on a bench near the entrance to the beach. McGee sat next to her, she said, and alluded to hiring her permanently as well as talked about her petite figure and his sexual prowess. She says he asked who was "fixing her needs" that night and graphically expressed his desire to have sex with her. She reminded him he was married, saying, "Well no, I think you should be fixing your needs with your wife, not here,'" Smith recalled.

She rejoined a group of coworkers and eventually made her way back to her hotel room.

She told her mentor, Allen, of the incident not long afterward, he confirmed.

Back at BPI, Smith told her supervisor and explained that she had been wearing hoodies and jeans lately in order to avoid McGee's attention. Her supervisor urged her to submit a written complaint.

Smith feared that speaking out against the politically connected McGee could hurt her career, but reluctantly agreed.

She submitted her complaint on Nov. 21, 2015, writing, "I am concerned and I do not believe I am the only one impacted by this issue, this is why I have brought this to your attention."

Her supervisor told her leadership said the matter was being handled, and they'd get back to her in six weeks.

That did not happen. Instead, she learned that her complaint had been passed around among leadership, including McGee. She heard comments from coworkers saying, "Oh, that's just Charles."

Meanwhile, he began being dismissive of her, or outright ignoring her when she would introduce him to people, Smith said.

In March, losing patience with what seemed like a hostile work situation, she finally quit.

"That's not me, I don't quit things," she said.

It was not a decision she made lightly for other reasons as well.

As a result of resigning before her Americorps stint was up, Smith forfeited the rights to a year of federal employment guaranteed by the program, as well as nearly $6,000 from Americorps to pay for a portion of her student loan obligation.

Long wait for contact

Emails show that not until May 2016 was she contacted by a man who supposedly was conducting an independent investigation of her complaint. It came to nothing that she could tell.

She later heard he was a BPI contractor who the board thought was being paid to help prepare a strategic plan — an account confirmed by Dara Wilk, the former BPI board vice chair.

Though Smith said she was told that the BPI board was made aware of her complaint, board members actually did not learn of her complaint until June 2016, seven months after she made it, Wilk said.

It launched its own investigation, interviewing her and allowing her to confront McGee. She asked for his resignation, but he denied wrongdoing.

In the end, the entire five-member board decided to resign collectively effective Dec. 23, 2016, citing the delay in being informed of the complaint against McGee, and his resistance to their investigation, Wilk said.

The outgoing board prepared a memo recounting their experience for McGee's personnel file so any new board members would be informed.

Unbeknownst to them, that would not happen for more than a year.

Meanwhile, frustrated that nothing was done, Smith contacted a lawyer in April 2017, only to learn the deadline to file a lawsuit had passed months before.

In January 2018, she reached out to the Tribune, having read an article about a stalking complaint filed against McGee. In it, a woman similarly described him as not taking no for an answer, and feeling that he was invulnerable due to political connections and lawyers.

"After hearing about his past behaviors and the possibility of other women having similar experiences, I realized this is a pattern," she said, explaining her decision to speak out publicly.

Asked detailed questions about Smith's story, McGee did not respond.

Nonprofit kept operating

BPI kept operating through 2017, apparently without a board, for nine months after the previous board resigned. Then a new board was installed in the fall.

Earlier this month, the new BPI board, headed by Chair Martin Jones, learned of McGee's abrupt decision to drop out of the race for county board, announced Feb. 6.

The news was promptly followed by the Willamette Week article that described sexual assault allegations. More details appeared in the paper the following day, recounting assault allegations made against McGee by two women. Portland police are investigating.

The board placed him on leave Feb. 6 and checked his personnel file, where they discovered documentation of Smith's complaint. After obtaining more documents about how McGee handled it, they fired him on Feb. 14.

Now, the new group of board members is scrambling to keep BPI going, holding a fundraiser on Thursday night.

And there are a lot of people rooting for it.

Wilk, the former board vice chair, says the nonprofit fills a vital role, and she hopes the controversy around McGee doesn't hurt it.

Allen, Smith's mentor and longtime Portland social worker — a former nonprofit CEO himself — says he'd hate to see BPI go away. Whatever happens with McGee, "don't let that stop the rest of the great work that they've been doing," he said.

Smith for her part, said that as long as changes are made to better address complaints like hers, "I think it should keep going." Of McGee, she said,"I don't think his actions should affect the resources and services that they can give. I think they are an essential part of the black community."

Compensation #NonprofitBoards

Do you or your board want to know how much you really should be paid or how overpaid you are (just kidding).  Of course this is not necessarily about how much you are worth - that goes without saying they could never afford you?  Check-out Guidestar's newly released Compensation Report.  All the stats from the "horses" mouths put in one place.  And if you think it's a little pricey (it does cost a bit to compile) talk to your community foundation or united way or association to make the purchase - that reduces the price per substantially. 

Nonprofit Board Fundraising #NonprofitBoards

Every nonprofit executive I encounter consistently expresses their frustration over the lack of enthusiasm or participation by their board and members in engaging in fundraising - often couched as the "give - get" challenge.  I am basically of the opinion that if the board has agreed this is their job then they should do that job.  If they have agreed on this, new recruits must be clear of what is expected (of course this is true for every expectation).  I further believe that board members should be recruited to bring different added values to the table and fundraising may not be one of these but again, it is up to the full board to establish the norm.

In the SSIR article I've been reviewing this week, the answer is: it depends but this is more the answer to the question about what to do with members who may not be right for raising money.  Fair enough: don't kick-out someone who brings different value to the organization.  BUT, all must agree and probably, establish criteria for what is "added value".

 

Board fundraising: Do you really want to screen out some of your top prospective board members?

Both board chairs and executive directors identify fundraising as the weakest aspect of board performance, and research suggests a major driver is poorly established expectations for fundraising during board recruitment. Conventional advice is therefore to double down during board recruitment on the importance of the board’s role in fundraising, such as setting a strict “give or get” requirement, and to devote material board meeting time to fundraising.

We acknowledge that in some fields, and at certain life stages of an organization, fundraising may be the single most important function of the board, in which case strict fundraising requirements and hefty time spent at meetings are logical. And of course, for all nonprofits in good standing, board members should be willing to consider donor introductions, serve as references, and assist in due diligence processes.

However, we believe strict fundraising requirements can produce unintended consequences. Not least, they almost certainly preclude perhaps the most valuable strategists and governists—nonprofit executive directors in adjacent fields or further up the scale curve—who need to fundraise for their own organizations. They also could crowd out higher-value uses of board member time across the wide range of functional areas a nonprofit must get right to be successful.

That’s why we suggest an alternative: Understand board members’ talents, compare against the organization’s greatest need and opportunity areas, and then set a roadmap for how best to deploy the board’s collective nonmeeting time. Through this exercise, we have found considerable value-add in areas traditionally neglected by boards, such as hiring and developing our senior leaders, and providing advice and connections for government relations, policy, and finance.

Nonprofit Board Term Limits #NonprofitBoards

Nonprofit board term limits: can't live without them.  Ah, but I am amazed at the number of nonprofits I work with who either don't observe their by-law established term limits or don't have by-law term limits.  The rationale usually focuses on how difficult it is to recruit new members and the loss of institutional memory or dedicated people.  Of course, these issues can be structurally addressed but the resolves often appear too arduous. 

I noted yesterday that SSIR has a new article titled Challenging Conventions with a focus on three particular issues.  Today's is, as you can see, is board term limits.  Their answer to the challenge: there are multiple options depending again, on the circumstances and institutional need.  I suggest, sure, maybe.  But I still would lean toward suggesting that term limits are a good thing, first.

Term limits: Do you really want to boot your most valuable directors?

It’s hard to argue with the benefit of term limits; they’re a built-in mechanism for the board to get fresh thinking, and potentially more relevant skill sets and perspectives as an organization’s needs evolve. They also help avoid tough conversations with board members whose value-add has diminished. Perhaps this is why 72 percent of nonprofit boards now have term limits.

But we’ve found there is far too little discussion of the drawbacks. It can lead to removing board members whose skills and perspectives may be just as, if not more, relevant to the organization’s next phase of growth, or whose years of experience on the board has put them at a distinct knowledge advantage over a new member (not to mention the considerable costs and uncertainties in finding new, high-caliber directors).

In our experience, there is a simple solution: term reviews. When a term expires, the board member and executive director, ideally with the board chair, should have a frank discussion about the projected value-add of continuing service to both the board member and organization. Value-add during the expiring term, evolving organizational needs, board fit, and the board member’s outside commitments should be among the factors to consider. We believe most boards, like ours, will find there is a solid nucleus of at least a few existing board members who are so experienced and so valuable to the next phase of growth that their ongoing involvement would be a boon for the organization and the functioning of the board.

For organizations that do stick with term limits, the executive director and board should at minimum be highly intentional about staying in close touch with the few separating board members whose skillsets and perspectives are particularly difficult to replace. These board members can function as ongoing advisors and may represent the organization’s best future board candidates.

Nonprofit Board Size #NonprofitBoards

Just how big is too big or small too small?  This is a question frequently considered about hands, oops (different discussion) I meant the size of nonprofit boards.  My experience is that pretty much any size can actually work but each size requires different levels of staff and board resources to ensure full engagement.  I believe that there 3 (often a state minimum) can actually be the right number for some nonprofits(where the singular board job is to provide fiduciary checks-and-balances) while 25 can be the right number for other nonprofits (where the singular job is fundraising (yes, fiduciary duty is done but members are around the table for networking etc).  Bottom line, there really is no one best answer, there are many best answers that include taking into account nonprofit needs and stage of development and role of the members.

That said, check-out this new SSIR article that I will include two more times this week as the article examines three subjects, including board size. Here's that part of the piece.

Board size: Do you really want to quash generative discussion?

Management experts have long noted the challenges of double-digit participant sizes for decision-making and problem-solving meetings, which in our view is the main purpose of a board meeting. And yet, median nonprofit board size is 15 members.

Like many early-stage nonprofits, One Acre Fund started out with a “working board,” which primarily focused on running support operations in the absence of staff. Since professionalizing a few years in, our board has never exceeded six independent members (eight in total, including two staff directors). We set the expectation that board members must attend all meetings and come highly prepared and ready to engage. In our experience, eight seems close to an upper bound to ensure that we have the kinds of high-quality discussions professionalized nonprofit boards should be having.

But you might ask, what about the value of attracting as many evangelists to the cause as possible through a large governing board? We’ve found that other structures, such as advisory and fundraising boards, and regular expert conversations can realize these benefits without overcrowding our governing board. For instance, One Acre Fund’s leadership team regularly consults a variety of experts and networks in addition to our board structures.

But, you might ask further, what about the common practice of choosing an executive committee from within a large governing board to handle strategy and governance? Based on the experiences of peers we’ve consulted, this can be a recipe for doubling the time requirements of your most valuable board members and reducing the incentive for anyone to attend full board meetings, as they shift in purpose from problem-solving to informing and recognizing.

In sum, our governing board functions as one of our most valuable sources for strategic insight, precisely because the group is small and cohesive enough to have high-quality, generative discussions. Of course larger boards can take steps to ensure strong dialogue, such as identifying a skilled facilitator, biasing toward in-person meetings (where dialogue can flow more freely), and encouraging board members to concentrate their participation on topics where they can add the most value. Since there is no magic number, we encourage organizations to take a close look at whether their board is delivering maximum insight as currently structured.

As one of the donor-proclaimed authorities on governance, here's BoardSource's own thoughts about size - not necessarily evidence-based but not inconsistent with other's experience:.

Nonprofit Board Effectiveness and Shared Governance #NonprofitBoards

An Opinion piece in Newsday offered the following perspective on higher education boards of trustees.

The people most responsible for higher education’s educational and business practices are the boards of trustees. But who are they?

Just as corporations and nonprofit organizations require boards whose members know the core of the organization’s strategy, universities benefit from trustees who can contribute to planning and decision-making. Trustees are most effective when they know the mission and purpose, the students, the competitive landscape and the comparative advantages of the institutions they serve. The most helpful are those who ask questions about that which they do not understand or with which they disagree. For example, I recall Adelphi trustees asking about our tuition compared to other institutions and which of the variables in our dashboard kept me up at night.

One reason for turmoil in university governance is the lack of respect for the tradition of shared governance. While trustees have ultimate authority, the board delegates powers to the president as chief executive and to faculty as guardians of academic programs and standards. Each has an important role in fulfilling an institution’s mission, and they must work together to develop the respect and trust necessary to move the institution forward.

I certainly agree with what is offered in the first two paragraphs.  Trustees are a critical check-and-balance in the way a nonprofit pursues mission.  Trustees singularly possess the fiduciary duties of care, loyalty and obedience.  Trustees are also however where the "buck" ends so just being inquisitive and disagreeing are not enough - establishing the overall values and direction and discerning progress are the more important roles.

In the third paragraph the author offers a definition of shared governance: a definition that constitutes sharing but leaves out a part of the formula.  Nonprofit boards are the surrogate "owners" ON BEHALF of their constituents and they are responsible for governing but governing is more than fiduciary responsibilities.  To govern without constituents is, I believe, a failing in good governance and there are recent examples of such failure (think alumni not wanting their alma mater to close).  So, truly shared governance includes a whole bevy of stakeholders including those who benefit most directly from the services - in essence, the true owners.

 

Nonprofit Moral Leadership at the Top #NonprofitBoards

Is it really possible that one country-unit in an international aid and relief organization could set-up a sex-slave shop without anyone else ever knowing?  And is it just the nature of nonprofit boards that bad "stuff" can go-on for months and even years without any of the systems and processes capturing this violation of values (to do no harm) by any nonprofit?

These are just two of the questions raised in story released by the Washington Post this weekend about the mega-international aid and relief organization, Oxfam.  According to the report, Oxfam's Haiti Country Director was "running an illegal makeshift brothel after a 2010 quake".  The Country Director was allowed to resign and simply walk away untarnished.  And while it is not clear if the ex-Director was still operating working for Oxfam, it was also just learned that this Director was hiring sex workers in Chad.

Oxfam's Board Chair stated today that: “We are ashamed of what happened,” “We apologize unreservedly.”  But Britain's head of international aid programs, a $44 billion funder of Oxfam said: “If the moral leadership at the top of the organization isn't there, then we can't have you as a partner,” she said.

So really, should donors forgive and forget or alternately, should they just impose new rules and regulations?  For sure, Oxfam management, at minimum, failed in the checks-and-balances category.  Let's suggest that the board really never learned about any of this material until just recently.  At minimum, this would suggest to me that Oxfam's ED should at minimum be put on probation and required to come up with new reporting and management systems and present these to the board post-haste!  At worse of course, the director should be fired and of course this is not the worse that has already been experienced by those who were trafficked.  

Does the Olympics Gymnast organization or Penn State examples need to be highlighted to remind all that boards are responsible to know and in a timely manner.  That clearly was not the case for Oxfam.

Nonprofit Board Failure #NonprofitBoards

The following Washington Post column is not ostensibly about nonprofit governance.  Ostensibly.  But in actuality, the source of policy that defines how much a nonprofit should have in reserves for those "rainy days" and when and if a nonprofit should go into debt - the Board of Directors.  I would pose that the following situation, and not one that is necessarily uncommon, is the product of questionable governance and management.  The board may have in place policies that prevent the scenario defined here.  It may not.  If it does and the management is not observing the policy: a board problem.  If it does not and the management is not communicating honestly and directly about the situation to staff: a board problem.  

There are multiple lessons included in this piece and I believe it's worth sharing to stimulate a generative discussion at a board meeting - just to be sure.....

 

 

This nonprofit isn’t promptly paying its workers. Should she blow the whistle when she leaves?

 

By Karla L. Miller February 8 at 8:00 AM Email the author

Reader: I am a day-care teacher for a nonprofit that serves limited-income families.

Every two weeks, we receive our pay by paper check and can cash the checks only at the bank used by the nonprofit. However, there is not always enough money in the nonprofit’s account to cover all the checks. Those who delay getting to the bank may have to wait up to an additional week to receive their pay.

I still live at home and will soon be leaving to pursue a master’s degree, but other staff rely on their check for rent and food. I believe the nonprofit exploits some workers who come from outside the United States and are surprised when they learn that other companies pay their employees regularly. What can we do about this?

Karla: Nonprofit organizations that depend on external funding sources often contend with unpredictable income fluctuations, according to Paula Brantner, senior adviser at the nonprofit Workplace Fairness. Annual grants and end-of-year surges in charitable donations have to be made to stretch through the lean seasons.

 

But whatever the reasons, floating paychecks is unacceptable from multiple angles.

(Marvin Joseph/The Washington Post)

To start, federal employment law requires wage payment on a regular schedule; most state labor agencies have rules about what constitutes a regular payday. And “you have to actually pay [employees], not hand them a worthless piece of paper,” says Declan Leonard of business law firm Berenzweig Leonard.

From the banking angle, it’s illegal to knowingly issue bad checks. And it appears your employer requires workers to take their checks to its own bank because it is aware the account may have insufficient funds and, if so, the bank will decline to pay, protecting your employer from overdrafts and penalty fees.

Finally, your nonprofit employer’s board of directors has a fiduciary duty to ensure the organization is managing funds properly and not committing labor violations. Many boards have a whistleblower policy to protect workers who report such issues, says Brantner.

 

Local workers’ rights centers can provide guidance and help employees take action, such as filing a complaint with the state labor agency, reporting bad checks to law enforcement or notifying the governing board. And a soon-to-be-departing colleague may be just the person to help organize and encourage vulnerable co-workers to seek out that guidance. 

 

Of course, ratting out your employer may mean disrupting the valuable services you provide. But consider that even in the for-profit sector, child-care workers in the United States are famously underpaid for their crucial labor — with a median salary of $21,170 a year, according to 2016 figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics — and many rely on public assistance to help support their own families. Turning them away empty-handed on payday is a service to no one.

Thanks also to Michelle Austin Crook, chief financial officer, Bank of Botetourt.

Nonprofit Board Stands By CEO 2 #NonprofitBoards

Last Friday I discussed the story about the Humane Society's Board standing by the CEO (accused of sexual harassment) despite evidence and seven of their board members resigning after the vote.  Some donors even promised not to continue their support.

Well, the story has a new ending: the CEO resigned stating he didn't want to be a "distraction" to the future of the Society.  In reality, he already was and would continue to be but that's neither here nor there.  He's gone now but will the resigned board members return? Likely not as the relational component of of what comprises a board is now broken and it would seem unlikely that these resigned members can or should be so forgiven.  And lost donors: again, their own trust has been betrayed as the board that did (in my opinion) the less than prudent action, remain.  

With the CEO out of the way it may be possible to rebuild the board but that is not the only activity that will need to be taken.  This is a long road to crawl down given the lack of enlightenment shown by those who remain.

Here's a story describing the CEO's departure (from TIME):

Humane Society CEO Wayne Pacelle Resigns Following Sexual Harassment Allegations

By MAHITA GAJANAN 

February 2, 2018

Humane Society CEO Wayne Pacelle resigned Friday following allegations of sexual harassment.

Pacelle quit after the Humane Society voted Thursday to keep him in his job after an internal investigation found three complaints of sexual harassment against him. Seven board members resigned in protest after the Humane Society decided to keep Pacelle on and close the investigation, The Washington Post reports.

Pacelle on Friday emailed Humane Society staff, saying he was leaving the company because “our mission depends on unity,” according to The New York Times.

The Humane Society said it accepted his resignation and that it had named Kitty Block as acting president and CEO in a statement. Block currently serves as the president of Humane Society International, the organization’s global affiliate.