Nonprofit Board Crisis

No Governance and No Commitment to Do No Harm #NonprofitBoards

 

There's a fight brewing over whether housing for Clergy should be tax-free.  I must admit that where once I might have strongly advocated for this exemption, despite the lack of consistency over the separation of church and state, I look around me and see where religion, not universally but frequently enough, no longer is the advocate of "doing no harm" and serving only the moral and spiritual needs of its members.  That faith bodies are now advocating for the Johnson Amendment to be removed (a clear failing to respect the separation of church and state) and that churches are already in possession of huge tax-free land-holdings and that churches (some) are even advocating doing harm (for instance the anti-gay folks), AND, that many faith practices aren't governed by anyone but those who benefit directly from that body (if even this), leads me to believe that faith practices are little more than exclusive clubs free of responsibility to community.  And yes, there are the exceptions who are the pillars of their communities but do we make rules to accommodate the exceptions?  One would hope not and certainly, this particular challenge over one element of this exemption is not enough to can the whole thing but one does wonder...

 

Here's the Wall Street Journal story on this matter.

Religious Groups, Atheists Clash Over Tax-Free Housing for Clergy

Lawsuit targets decades-old parsonage allowance as promoting religion

 

 

 

The parsonage exemption reduces federal revenue by $700 million a year, according to estimates from Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation. PHOTO: JOE SUTTER/ASSOCIATED PRESS

By 

Erica Snow

Oct. 24, 2018 3:19 p.m. ET

 

CHICAGO—A lawyer for religious groups on Wednesday defended in federal court a 64-year-old tax break that grants priests, rabbis and imams tax-free housing allowances—costing the Treasury of hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

A district judge in Wisconsin last year sided with a group that backs the separation of church and state, ruling that the law discriminates against other taxpayers and violates the Constitution “because a reasonable observer would view the statute as an endorsement of religion.”

 

On Wednesday, the two sides argued the case before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

At stake is section 107(2) of the Internal Revenue Code, passed by Congress in 1954, allowing a “minister of the gospel” to exclude from his gross income the “rental allowance paid to him as part of his compensation.” The law has been interpreted to include rabbis, imams and other religious figures.

The tax break, commonly called the parsonage exemption, reduces federal revenue by $700 million a year, according to estimates from Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation.

Luke Goodrich, the lead lawyer representing clergy, pointed out that some secular employees—including military personnel—receive tax-free housing. Under section 119 of the federal tax law, any employee can exclude housing from his or her gross income if lodging on the premises is required as a condition of employment and provided for the convenience of the employer.

Pastors are typically required to live in their communities to better serve them, supporters of the tax break say.

 

 

Mr. Goodrich, an attorney for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit legal institute, argued in court on Wednesday that “history strongly supports the constitutionality” of the break. “This is not special treatment for ministers,” Mr. Goodrich said. “Rather, it’s taking a broad rule that applies to hundreds of thousands of nonreligious workers, and it’s applying to ministers.”

Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-founder of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a nonprofit advocating for the separation of church and state, lambasted the parsonage allowance as a “baldfaced promotion of religion.”

“Rewarding ministers for fighting godlessness with a subsidy is promotion of religion by the government,” Ms. Gaylor said.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is an educational nonprofit and association of atheists, agnostics and skeptics. When calling its headquarters in Madison, Wis., cheery hold music to the tune of “Battle of Jericho” includes the lyrics: “I’ve heard about your hero Joshua/but his accomplishments are not so great/because there’s none like Thomas Jefferson and the wall between church and state.”

Some tax-law experts have also said the tax break for clergy is unconstitutional. Prof. Adam Chodorow of Arizona State University said the tax exclusion has received little pushback because of how costly it is to litigate a public-interest lawsuit.

Prof. Chodorow, who argued in court on Wednesday, said the benefit has been stretched to faculty at religiously affiliated schools.

“I don’t think that the parsonage exemption is bankrupting America, but it’s money we could be using for other important purposes,” he said.

A spokesman for the IRS declined to comment, citing pending litigation.

Father Patrick Malone, who advocates for the tax break, said he didn’t go into the ministry to get rich.

“When people give money to the church, it’s their understanding they’re giving their money to God,” he said in a phone interview. “They’re not thinking it’s going to tax because they’re not purchasing a product.”

Ran Out of Funds #NonprofitBoards

 

In a follow-up story about what was an intended signature event gone economically wrong, The Gazzette (Iowa) reported on the many vendors, including the police, who have had their checks bounced or just haven't been paid from an event conducted by GO Cedar Rapids that whose costs wildly exceeded planned income.  Toward the end of the piece, the writer noted that should any of the vendors be seeking compensation for their losses from the organization's "owners"  the board, they would likely be unsuccessful.  But, there are possibilities as the board will not be able to completely "go away" without resolving these challenges, at least, formally.  As noted:

Paul Thelen, director of the Larned A. Waterman Iowa Nonprofit Resource Center, said Iowa like many states has strong legal protections for board members.

Board members are protected from legal claims if a director acted in good faith; believed his or her conduct was in support of the organization or at least not opposed to it; did not believe the conduct was illegal; and the conduct was permissible under the organization bylaws.

“You have that veil of protection for people willing to serve in this role,” he said. “If it weren’t for these protections, you’d have a very tough time to get people to volunteer on these boards. ... That bar is pretty high, that veil of protection, but people can still file suits and you have to respond to it.”

Thelen said many organizations have director and officer insurance as added protection in the event of litigation.

GO Cedar Rapids has not said whether it has such insurance. While GO Cedar Rapids has folded, the board remains active.

Thelen said nonprofit boards have a “winding up” before dissolving and cannot complete the process if claims are known to exist.

Yes, different state laws may apply with similar situations and vendors could still, in my opinion, rally a class action approach BUT, it would be on the plaintiffs to prove that board members were intentional about and/or knowing they were taking on debt they couldn't pay-off.  A bad board just the same.

 

 

 

Lawyers on Board #NonprofitBoards

I, too often to remember the precise frequency, hear boards talk about the necessity of having a lawyer fill at least one seat.  The expectation is of course that free and wise legal counsel will forever be available.  No I caution, not an attorney myself, not all lawyers know the same content and some may be more helpful than others and no matter what, they can't actually represent your board although as a volunteer they may be able to offer their expertise and certainly their discipline may prove helpful in some internal deliberations.

The following Legal Intelligence article, written as advice to attorneys who serve or will serve on boards can be helpful to addressing nonprofit board members' expectations about lawyers who have a seat.  It's a short lift from reversing the mirror to better clarify what are reasonable expectations.

 

What to Remember as an Attorney Serving on a Nonprofit Board

Serving as a board member on a board of directors for a nonprofit organization can provide a chance to give back to a community or institution in a rewarding and impactful way.

By Patricia E. Farrell and Maxwell Briskman Stanfield | October 17, 2018 at 02:52 PM

 

Serving as a board member on a board of directors for a nonprofit organization can provide a chance to give back to a community or institution in a rewarding and impactful way. Through their decisions, board members determine an organization’s purpose and path, how funding is gathered and spent, who controls operations and much more.

Almost anyone from a variety of backgrounds can become part of a board. A starting point for those looking to sit on a board is generally the so-called “middle-market nonprofits”—those which may not have thousands of employees but still have significant budgets. These boards, of course, include attorneys—but as legal professionals, there’s always a catch.

While the experience of serving on a board is invaluable, particularly if it’s a cause in which you strongly believe, attorneys must be mindful of certain areas. Conflicts of interest and crossing the line between board member and attorney are two important areas requiring mindfulness. In a time when nonprofits are under intense scrutiny, certain ethical considerations as well as best practices in connection with serving on a board must become common knowledge among board members, especially those who are attorneys.

Rules

A central characteristic when we think of a nonprofit is that it’s an organization which has been granted tax-exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). This exempt status is granted to a variety of nonprofit organizations pursuant to numerous IRS subsections. Most familiar is the 501(c)(3), however there exist 29 types of nonprofits under Section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code. 501(c)(3) organizations are those that further religious, scientific, charitable, educational, literary, public safety or cruelty prevention causes or purposes, as well as generate some public benefit.

Generally speaking, 501(c)(3) nonprofits can be separated into two categories: public charities that benefit the public’s interest and carry out some type of direct charitable activity, and private foundations that make grants to unrelated organizations, such as institutions or individuals for scientific, educational, cultural, religious or other charitable purposes.

Unlike publicly traded, for-profit corporations, which are governed heavily by federal laws such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, there are only one or two provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that expressly apply to nonprofit organizations. Accordingly, nonprofits operating under a “best practices” model, generally borrow significantly from for-profit corporation regulations. Moreover, each state has the ability to adopt legislation to govern nonprofits within its borders. Often these state’s legislatures pull from the Model Nonprofit Corporation Act, promulgated by the American Bar Association, which state legislatures use as a guide and “modify” as they see fit. Many legal experts, however, see no reason not to incorporate into the board’s management and operation some of the better practices of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, such as audit committees and policies for document retention, whistleblower protection and conflicts of interest.

An understanding of at least minimum competency regarding what laws pertain to nonprofits in your state is crucial for all board members, but especially for those who are attorneys.

Obligations

Think back to law school. We all know we have certain ethical duties and obligations as attorneys. Additionally, we all remember learning the basics of fiduciary duties in our business associations or corporations course. These same duties and obligations apply when serving on a board. In Pennsylvania, for example, fiduciary obligations established under corporate law, as well as case law, are the rule:

Duty of care: It’s not enough to simply be a board member. You need to carry out your duties with a reasonable amount of diligence and good faith. Attend board meetings and engage in discussions, review financial information and other reports, and ask questions to hold management accountable. If you don’t have the time to invest yourself in the board, maybe you shouldn’t be a part of it.

Duty of loyalty: Carry yourself in a manner that is reasonably believed to be in the interest of the nonprofit and its purpose, rather than your own self-interest. Typically, this is done through a conflict-of-interest policy. If there is a matter that arises which may affect you outside your board activities, be it personal or work-related, recuse yourself from votes and other decisions.

Duty of obedience: Ensure the nonprofit is acting in accordance with its purpose and operating within applicable laws. You can do this by having an independent audit done regularly and changing auditors from time to time. The board can have its own audit committee, as well, but make certain the executive director is not part of it. This is as much about optics as it is staying accountable.

These jurisprudence concepts are largely consistent nationwide. Taken as a whole, they mean board members are required to make careful, considered, good-faith decisions that are in the best interest of the nonprofit, consistent with its mission and independent of undue influence from any other party.

Large national or international nonprofits have the depth and resources to have these rules thoroughly understood, worked out and conveyed to their board members. However, so-called middle-market nonprofits tend to be less consistent when it comes to educating their board about their duties. A best practice is to provide a board packet consisting of a set of documents outlining duties for meeting conduct and attendance, the organization of the board, conflict-of-interest and whistleblower policies, and other key information at the start of the nonprofit’s year and as new board members come aboard.

Roles

A board works best when all board members are using their unique skills in concert to work toward the nonprofit’s mission. As a lawyer, your legal expertise and opinion will certainly be useful and in demand, but should you always offer it?

There is no hard and fast rule about how to separate yourself as “just another member of the board” and legal counsel. Instead, there are ethical rules by which lawyers are bound, and it’s your obligation as an attorney board member to actively be aware of and stay out of conflict-of-interest situations.

If you’re on a board but strictly serving as its legal counsel, one solution to avoid any type of impropriety or conflict of interest is to have a non-voting seat and refrain from weighing in on decisions unless and until a legal issue arises. But if there’s a conflict of interest —say, the board is thinking of buying a parcel of land from a client of your law firm—it’s time to sit out (quite literally).

Even if you are not formally wearing your “attorney hat” and simply acting as another board member, it’s important to make qualifying statements when participating in a discussion: “This is my opinion, not a legal opinion.” You want to make clear you’re not giving legal advice in any situation.

Liabilities

If you’re giving the wrong legal advice and the recipient believes it to be given in the capacity of an attorney providing legal advice—and this is true, no matter if it’s serving on a board or serving drinks as a bartender—you open yourself up to malpractice. Malpractice insurance exists to cover instances such as this, but not all insurers may honor a claim if you were acting as a board member rather than official legal counsel. This is why boards need to have in place Directors and Officers Insurance coverage (D&O coverage).

D&O coverage is easy to obtain and not necessarily expensive. Large for-profit corporations are certainly taking advantage of this, especially in the wake of major corporate scandals in the early 2000s, but many middle-market nonprofits neither know about nor have this type of insurance coverage. The organization should work with an insurance provider to ensure that D&O insurance covers employee/employment matters, which is from where the majority of litigation stems.

Motivations

A good introspective question before agreeing to join a board (or, really, before agreeing to do most things in life) is: Why am I doing this?

For some, sitting on a board for a noted charity may simply be a marketing tool. For others—and this should certainly be your primary reason—it’s because there exists a true sense of care and devotion to the cause. Your reasons ultimately belong to you, but there are certainly additional benefits to sitting on a board, including networking opportunities and a chance to gain unique insights into a specific industry that can help you as your career continues and grows.

Regardless of why you’re there, when you’re sitting on a board, your position as an attorney board member is unique and comes with important considerations.

Patricia E. Farrell is an attorney at Pittsburgh-based law firm Meyer, Unkovic & Scott. She focuses her practice on corporate and business law services. Farrell can be reached at [email protected].

Maxwell Briskman Stanfield is also an attorney at Meyer, Unkovic & Scott. He focuses his practice on corporate, business, financial and commercial real estate law. Stanfield can be reached at [email protected].

I, too often to remember the precise frequency, hear boards talk about the necessity of having a lawyer fill at least one seat.  The expectation is of course that free and wise legal counsel will forever be available.  No I caution, not an attorney myself, not all lawyers know the same content and some may be more helpful than others and no matter what, they can't actually represent your board although as a volunteer they may be able to offer their expertise and certainly their discipline may prove helpful in some internal deliberations.

The following article, written as advice to attorneys who serve or will serve on boards can be helpful to addressing nonprofit board members' expectations about lawyers who have a seat.  It's a short lift from reversing the mirror to better clarify what are reasonable expectations.

Heretical Musings About Nonprofit Governance #NonprofitBoards

Ok you might ask: heretical?  Yup, my choice of words is very intentional.  And yes, 13 years as a Catholic seminarian provides me with my understanding of the use of the word.  But how am I applying this word:  Jimmy Rose - that beloved outlier "expert" and prophet on what he believes is the "correct" understanding of nonprofit governance.  Am I a believer?  Really you must ask?  

Anyway, the self-adulating (good word again) Jimmy Rose outlines his views in a new book (you can go look for it on Amazon I presume) but synthesizes his preaching as follows:

Boardsmanship is not Governance: Don’t kid yourselves. UNPAID VOLUNTEER BOARD MEMBERS DON'T GOVERN. Actual governance occurs when a person (with a full-time salary) supported by various paid staff (the formation of a government) is empowered to perform the daily tasks of decision-making and oversight. Strong CEOs GOVERN!   HOLY S.......!

Boardsmanship is not Visioning: VISION is the way MISSION is achieved and is never the responsibility of the board because the board isn’t being paid to accomplish it. STRONG CEOs DETERMINE VISION. (I’ll agree that board members hold their compensated leader accountable to achieve MISSION.) Here's what you do. Hire a strong CEO who can be trusted to design a HEROIC VISION OF SCALE that accomplishes mission in ways you never dreamed possible. Believe me, strong CEOs are already doing it their way even if they're forced to label it “BOARD VISION.”  Again, HOLY S.....!

Boardsmanship is not Policy-Making: Hire a CEO whose depth of experience and formal education has already equipped them as a management expert. The right CEO has been properly trained to oversee the creation of policies that work. Board Members never write policy anyway. Someone else does the heavy-lifting and they rubber stamp it.  UH......

Boardsmanship is not Volunteerism: Eliminate the special events committee. Eliminate the fundraising committee. Eliminate the public relations committee. Eliminate the strategic planning committee. (Here’s a good rule of thumb - remove everything from your by-laws that’s not related to IRS compliance.) Re-assemble these groups as volunteers (non-board members) who serve you directly. For example, a group of social workers is assembled to serve the program director, or a campaign cabinet comprised of community volunteers is built to advance fundraising. You now have individuals in their sweet spots, who are no longer saddled with arcane tasks.  I actually kind-of agree with this except for the strategic planning committee.

Boardsmanship is not Management: Board members have no authority over the day-to-day operations of a nonprofit UNLESS there’s a written directive recorded in board meeting minutes with a motion, second
and full vote. Members cannot unilaterally exercise power. Nor can committees. Conversely, board members actually need to receive permission from the CEO if they intend to act on behalf of the nonprofit in a manner that could affect daily operations.  I agree with this also - not so hard to concur.

Like I said, "I've figured out this whole BOARD THING!" Here’s how it works:

(everything you need on one page - copy and send to everyone)

Great boards do TWO things. They provide:

...ADVICE & ACCOUNTABILITY  Yes in terms of content - no in terms of methodology and more importantly, who recruits and selects - not the CEO!

The STRONG CEO is named chair of the nominations committee and fills these SIX POSITIONS (yes, you only need six [plus]):

1. Business Expert (Chair) Entrepreneur
2. Program Expert (Secretary) Specific
3. Finance Expert (Treasurer) Accountant
4. Legal Expert (Member) Lawyer
5. Communications Expert (Member) PR/Marketer
6. Nonprofit Expert (Member) Consultant

THAT’S IT! (add other experts as needed eg. personnel, etc.) However, don’t forget, working group theory states that any “working group” with more than seven people is no longer a group that works!

Here are their ten clear-cut ADVICE & ACCOUNTABILITY functions:

1. Comply with IRS Regulations
2. Hire strong Chief Executive Officer
3. Approve Meeting Agenda
4. Approve and Amend By-Laws
5. Choose and Review Independent Financial Audit (annual)
6. Choose and Review Independent Program Audit (annual)
7. Evaluate strong Chief Executive Officer
8. Attend Three Meetings per Year with Recorded Minutes  Possibly but perhaps should also come prepared and maybe also prepped through committee work?
9. Support the CEOs Vision (not the boards vision) Can't disagree more!
10. Provide CEO their expert advice  sure - as volunteers :)

There's your sneak preview! Thanks for taking a moment to set aside the chatter and consider a field-tested and proven "common sense" approach to board management FOR STRONG CEOs!

Nonprofit Fail: How Might It Have Gone Differently?

An international nonprofit with an important story to tell and a Theory of Change that appears to have promising results has failed.  That is, it's leadership has failed according to Time and ProPublica and subsequently reported by NPR.  

As told, one of the primary leaders in an organization focused singularly on the healing of young girls used his position to abuse the very girls he was tasked to aid.  The founder of the organization, a dynamic and energetic leader did not see the abuse and nor, it appears, were there checks and balances in place that might have prevented these outcomes.  The founder leader is away from her job for the time being while the board has stepped-in to assess the situation.  And where was the board before?  Many questions and answers to be discovered.  

Checks-and-balances is the lesson that should be gleaned, minimally from this story.  That's what the surrogate owners, the board, are tasked with ensuring.  That and evaluation.  Founders are not "gods or goddesses" and this founder, for all her strengths particularly at telling the story, knew little about managing a nonprofit.  Another lesson perhaps.

 

Editor's note: In the wake of the investigative story being published, More than Me issued this statement:

"We are deeply, profoundly sorry. To all the girls who were raped by MacIntosh Johnson in 2014 and before: we failed you. We gave Johnson power that he exploited to abuse children and staff failed to report the abuse to our leadership immediately. Our leadership should have recognized the signs earlier and we have and will continue to employ training and awareness programs so we do not miss this again....

"We acknowledge the enormous complexity of being responsible for the care of children and that previously we were naïve to believe that providing education alone is enough to protect these girls from the abuses they may face .... An independent audit completed this summer called for the implementation of a range of changes including survivor-centered protocols, additional resources to ensure efficient reporting, broad application of safety standards to all of our public schools and organizational culture change and we continue to be firmly committed to further bolstering our safeguarding policies. As we work to correct past failures, we welcome the Ministry of Education to the Academy at any time for a complete inspection.

"We regret that coverage in ProPublica and Time presented a one-sided view of our overall work and achievements, often quoting out of context or minimizing our institutional development and impact over the past four years."

ProPublic and Time have responded: "The organization did not identify any inaccuracies." In an update, they also report that "Katie Meyler ... temporarily stepped down from her position as the American charity's chief executive officer pending the results of a Liberian panel's review" of the investigative report.

Nonprofit Governance Taken Seriously #NonprofitBoards

Talk about behind the curtain.  The following opinion piece made it to the area paper, the Napa Valley Register.  I appreciate that members take their board so seriously and are willing to put themselves out publicly to ensure that those who are tasked with governing do so.

Here's the piece:

According to a recent memo from Ron Kraft, president of Napa Valley College dated September 2018, Amy Martenson, a candidate for the College Board of Trustees and current trustee, has violated Ethics Policy 2715, citing her failure to maintain appropriate communication and decision-making channels.

As a past supporter of Amy for the College Board of Trustees, I have been disappointed in her ability to accomplish anything meaningful at the college while causing disarray on the board. According to the memo, she has proven to be inappropriate, disrespectful and disruptive. She lacks the ability to build consensus. That’s why five of the current Trustees, including Barbara Nemko, Napa County Superintendent of Schools, all five of the Napa County Supervisors and many more community leaders have endorsed Jeff Dodd,

Jeff Dodd, a candidate for District 2, has a clear record of working with people to build consensus on issues facing our community and has served on several nonprofit boards including Connolly Ranch and Community Health Initiative. His land-use experience as an attorney will greatly enhance the decisions the college makes regarding student housing. As a former student of Napa College, Jeff knows its true value to Napa residents.

 

Please join me in supporting Jeff Dodd for Napa CollegeTrustee in District 2 and visit his website to learn more about him. https://jeffdodd.info/

Sharon Macklin

Nonprofit Board Leadership Matters #NonprofitBoards

I just took a look at the 2018 nonprofit power 50: The most powerful people in the (New York) nonprofit sector published by CityandStateNY.

Without question, all of these individuals are very formidable and impressive people.  BUT, not one of these folks was a board chair or board member of their organization.  They were all the paid leaders.  What: board folks, the surrogate owners, are not powerful nor impressive?  They give their time, wisdom and often enough, money or network and this isn't equally impressive as that of the paid leadership? 

 What we also need to both recognize and hold-up as models, is an annual list of the volunteer leaders who are making a difference.  These folks can be proposed by their execs and board members and there would need to be evidence and examples.  But you can't tell me that there aren't volunteer leaders making an impact and equally powerful as these paid folks.  After all: who hired these folks in the first place?

 

 

Nonprofit Board Personnel Fail #NonprofitBoards

There are times, intentional or otherwise, when a board cannot just "stand by their man".  The Cheyenne Animal Shelter is a case example.  In an effort to demonstrate animal control techniques, presumably in the best interest of the staff, the Shelter's CEO used pepper spray on an animal.  While apparently not a policy, the practice was anything but well received and resulted in a lot of chatter by friends of the shelter, the staff and board and subsequently, the CEO's initial suspension without pay followed by his resignation.  The board did not publicly fault the CEO as having used bad judgement or having violated a policy and in fact, offered praise for who the CEO's reputation and even noted they were sure there was no ill-will intended.  Whether such a proclamation even with the resignation will mollify donors remains to be seen.  But it is clear that the board must now revisit its written policies to ensure there is clarity about what is and what is not acceptable animal treatment and what must be done to ensure staff safety.  Were I the board, I would make sure that all are clear the board knows what next it should do in this regard ahead of hiring the next CEO.

 

From KGWN Cheyene:

 

Former CPD Police Chief, Shelter CEO Resigns

Posted: Fri 5:43 PM, Oct 05, 2018

     

CHEYENNE, WYO (KGWN) Cheyenne Animal Shelter CEO and former CPD Police Chief Bob Fecht stepped down from his position with the shelter Friday evening.

In a press release sent out by the Cheyenne Animal Shelter, the Board indicated it accepted a letter of separation from Bob Fecht.

Fecht was suspended without pay for six weeks in September for his role in the pepper-spraying of an 8-month-old pitbull mix named Tanner.

An investigation by the CPD concluded with the recomendation charges of animal abuse be filed against Fecht and two animal control officers involved in the incident.

This week, District Attorney Jeremiah Sandburg said he would not seek charges against Fecht because there wasn't enough evidence to prove a Wyoming law had been broken.

In the statement, CAS said Fecht is "a highly respected member of the Cheyenne community. He is a former Wyoming State Senator, and served as the Cheyenne Chief of Police from 2002-2009. He has also spent nearly two decades serving on nonprofit boards."

The CAS Board of Directors said they will begin a nationwide search for Fecht's replacement immediately.

The full statement from the Cheyenne Area Shelter can be read below.

CHEYENNE, Wyo. – October 5, 2018 – The Cheyenne Animal Shelter Board of Directors has accepted a letter of separation from Bob Fecht, the organization’s CEO. Fecht was suspended without pay in September after he used pepper spray on a dog that had bitten a shelter employee to demonstrate how employees could use spray as a deterrent if they felt threatened by an aggressive animal. The Board will begin a national search for a new CEO immediately.

The incident generated a great deal of controversy for the shelter. In a statement announcing Fecht’s suspension, the board said “The decision to use an animal, aggressive or not, in pepper spray training as a way to simulate a realistic scenario and demonstrate its effectiveness for employee safety is one that the Shelter Board feels was not justified and cannot support. After reviewing all of the facts of both incidents, the Board feels confident that the decision to use an animal for pepper spray training was not made with the intent to cause harm or inflict punishment on the animal. However, it also feels that the decision was rash and made without proper consideration of alternative training methods.”

After the board’s decision, Bob Fecht issued his own statement: “The Cheyenne Community and the Cheyenne Animal Shelter have recently been embroiled in a controversy over actions that I and I alone undertook. Many of the shelter staff and members of the Board of Directors have felt the repercussions of the controversy both professionally and personally. I wish to apologize to our entire staff, Board members and the community as a whole for creating this situation and embarrassing our organization in the process.

The Cheyenne Animal Shelter has for years been considered one of the premier shelters in the United States, and it has been my privilege to work with our outstanding staff. There was never any intent to cause injury or damage to the animal involved, nor was there any intent to tarnish the reputation of the organization. While my primary goal was driven by an intense desire to protect our employees who are subjected to animals of questionable character every single day, upon reflection I realize that the decision I made was a personal and emotional reaction on my part and I sincerely regret not having considered alternatives before acting.”

 

Fecht is a highly respected member of the Cheyenne community. He is a former Wyoming State Senator, and served as the Cheyenne Chief of Police from 2002-2009. He has also spent nearly two decades serving on nonprofit boards.

“Bob Fecht has been a trusted friend and inspirational leader to the Cheyenne Animal Shelter for many years,” said Tammy Maas, president of the CAS Board of Directors. “We respectfully accept his decision to step down and we wish him nothing but the best in the future.”

Although many community members were calling for legal action, after an investigation by the Cheyenne Police Department the Laramie County District Attorney’s office decided not to file charges of animal abuse. In response to the incident, the CAS board recently announced a series of changes including appointing an interim CEO and a new board president. In addition, the staff will receive supplemental training using deterrents such as water spray bottles, canned air and citronella.

Nonprofit Board Chair Qualities #NonprofitBoards

While current and previous research by the Alliance for Nonprofit Management Governance Affinity Group indicates there to not be a lot of planning for who will serve as Board Chair, this question and the criteria for what qualities does indeed contribute to a par excellence chair should, in my opinion, be at top-of-mind for every board. 

The Affinity Group continues its research to answer this question and the following opinion piece provides additional fodder for answering this question.  In short, the author, admittedly focused on an elected position but a Chair job just the same, simply identifies the job of Chair as being spokesperson for their "body" and ensuring that all voices are represented fully in decision-making.  The author goes onto suggest that experience in board service matters as a contributor to necessary skills.  The Affinity Group's research suggests that maybe more skills should be counted as mattering but that discussion is for another day. 

Bottom line though: Willingness to serve can not be the only criteria for serving as a board chair.

Camas resident Anna Miller shares her thoughts on upcoming race for county chair

Why should voters care who is the next chair of the Clark County Council? How does it affect our everyday lives? Voters decided a few years ago that the council should have a chair and be elected county-wide.

The duties of the chair are, the spokesperson to articulate council policies. represent the county before the governor, state legislature and other state and federal agencies. And this one is a big deal in my opinion … supervise constituent response process for the council as a whole. Why is that important? Because the chair will decide how county government will respond to the concerns and complaints of the people! Will they treat citizens with respect, be transparent, helpful and solutions driven? Or will they be unresponsive, uncaring and mired in levels of bureaucracy?

There is only one candidate in this race, Eileen Quiring, that has the experience and professional background, and “first do no harm” leadership style to fulfill the duties of the chair and be ready on day one. Eileen is currently the vice chair of the council. She has held elected office as a state representative and senator. That legislative experience is critical in dealing with state government on issues that affect our county, which in turn affects us. The closest her opponent has come to state government is a failed campaign.

Eileen has private sector experience as a small business owner. She knows the struggle that businesses have. It’s real, and she gets it. And, she is compassionate. Eileen has given back to her community by sitting on numerous nonprofit boards.

But what about policy differences? Her opponent is on record as saying he will vote to raise our property taxes every year. Her opponent favors a state income tax. He wants to restrict individual property rights and advocates for land use policies that drive up housing costs. He has HIS little piece of land, a 5-acre farm, but feels that’s not right for everyone and wants government to be MORE involved in decisions about our property.

Her opponent supports tolls and light rail, both voted down by the majority of county citizens. Oddly, he says Clark County doesn’t need more industry, which of course would mean more jobs. I wonder how the folks of the Columbia River Economic Development Council feel about that? In contrast, Eileen Quiring, is a consistent “No’’ vote to higher taxes. She’s looking for lean and efficient government, ways to downsize government while making sure the county is providing essential services and helping out our most vulnerable citizens. She supports policies that create an environment for businesses to flourish.

Eileen believes that it is compassionate to provide a way for families to have good jobs and that means attracting job creators. Eileen supports policies that respect urban and rural land owners property rights. It’s our land! Se has been advocating for a third bridge whenever she has an opportunity and feels tolls are not the solution,because they hurt working families.

Let’s support a chair candidate whose style of governing is “citizens first.” I hope you will join me in voting for Eileen Quiring for Clark County Council chair in November.

Anna Miller
Camas