Nonprofit Board Crisis

Nonprofit Board Assets #Nonprofitboards

In my experience, I believe that the public generally presumes that collecting lots of "rare: stuff and maybe telling the stories about that stuff is what a museum does.  But what happens when the museum doesn't have the resources, for whatever reason, to continue to tell stories despite the reality that it has collected lots of "rare" stuff, aka "assets".  In the case of the Berkshire Museum, use its tangible assets to create cash.  After all, assets are, by definition, "property owned by a person or company, regarded as having value and available to meet debts, commitments, or legacies". 

And, despite all kinds of objections from different stakeholders and court involvement, the Berkshire Museum announced this week that it has gone into its collection and sold enough of its stuff to raise $53 million.  And now the board is committed to moving forward and telling new stories.  

Clearly the Museum board was bound to answer two questions: is it in the collection business or story-telling business.  I would pose that the board chose the story-telling business.  Can it really do this without the items it now no longer owns?  That is of course the question all museums must ask when they make such a bold move.  And is there really an incorrect answer?  This the public must decide.

Here's the story from the Boston Globe:

Berkshire Museum finishes controversial art sales, raising $53 million

BEN GARVER /THE BERKSHIRE EAGLE VIA AP/FILE 2017

The Berkshire Museum in Pittsfield

By Lillian Brown GLOBE CORRESPONDENT  NOVEMBER 27, 2018

The Berkshire Museum has completed its controversial sale of artworks. According to an announcement by the Pittsfield museum on Tuesday, it has sold 22 pieces of art for a total of $53.25 million, including Norman Rockwell’s “Shuffleton’s Barbershop” and “Blacksmith’s Boy,” two of the museum’s most famous works. 

Funds from the sale will be used for refurbishing and repairing the building, as well as for the museum’s endowment. On Monday, the board of trustees approved work starting those repairs.

“We are moving forward having secured the future of this museum for generations to come,” Elizabeth McGraw, president of the board of trustees, said in a prepared statement. “Our work ahead is focused on making this Museum ever more interesting, inspiring and engaging to the broad community in the region it serves and consistent with our unchanged mission.”

When CEO Action Conflicts with Board Values and Mission #NonprofitBoard

When a nonprofit CEO takes actions that are clearly opposite the core defined and expressed values of the nonprofit's board, what should happen?  You and I would likely agree that, following a validating review of the circumstances, firing the individual is a reasonable and appropriate response.  

I must be confused about the relationship between the US President and the Congress/Senate.  It appears that the US President is currently, at minimum, violating what I have understood to be core values by tear gassing asylum seekers on the US southern border.  (Did you know that tear gas in not allowable in war but is allowable in police actions?).  Given this presidential acceptance of this treatment of asylum seekers (noting that not welcoming asylum seekers at all is also at least a core value if not long-standing tradition), it occurs to me that this would in any nonprofit situation, be a firing or at least punishable offense.  

So what gives?  Does the Congress/Senate not have core values that are consistent with the Constitution?  Does the Congress/Senate not have the cajones to take action when appropriate?  Does the American public not care?

Nonprofit CEO Compensation Matters #NonprofitBoards

I generally shy away from commentary pertaining to nonprofit CEO''s compensation.  My fundamental belief is nonprofit boards have a rationale for establishing what is the compensation package and it is up to them to defend their decision internally and externally.  I further believe that it is up to donors to determine whether the board is correct or not.

Inequality.org has just released an "expose" on the compensation of for-profit and non-profit CEO's in the cancer "industry".  Inequality.org has found that an essential strategy for raising money or generating customers is to identify the one success story and use that as a lure to those seeking solutions.  Inequality.org further notes that the CEO's of both types of institutions are profiting from their successful marketing efforts.  They further point out that both sectors of CEOs are sitting on and being compensated by the very same financial supporter boards, pretty much pharmas, which support their institutions.  The likelihood that conflicts of interest are possible or probable is high according to the expose.

I prefer to rationalize that the compensation for the nonprofit CEOs is far below that of their for-profit counterparts and that sitting on a pharma board does not inherently compromise their work.  Perhaps and perhaps not.  Of course, it continues to remain up to the boards to say otherwise and this is precisely where I believe Inequality.org should probe further.  Maybe it is at the board level that failure and compromise is more likely.  

 

Employee and Member Objections Not Enough To Move Board #NonprofitBoard

Bedore was one of six people who filed complaints of discrimination and/or sexual and workplace harassment by Klein with CLUE’s board in March. Bedore claimed one of the board members, Richard Zaldivar, said to her: “Well, this is a powerful organization and organizations can’t change overnight. Think of it this way: Donald Trump is in power and none of us like what he does, but he keeps the country going, so think of your boss as that — he keeps the organization going.”

The director of a "clergy and laity" economic justice organization has resigned, reportedly of their own cognition while retaining the full board's ringing endorsement despite a resounding lack of support by staff and some members.  The above quote from the Jewish Journal (the resigning CEO is a Rabbi) is just one of many details provided in a lengthy article that certainly left me asking: why was the board behind this fellow.  The article leaves me little convincement that despite a board investigation, something was not right. 

But, do nonprofit boards always know best?

Nonprofit Board Fiduciary Duty Fail in Hiring the Correct CEO #NonprofitBoard

OK, so the Antelope Valley Press titled "Hospital CEO, CFO submit resignations" provides very little detail but serves as a reminder that nonprofit boards must get one fiduciary decision correct or face severe consequences, hiring an executive to address the day-to-day mission activities.  This board 

 

The District Board first met in closed session on Oct. 15, emerging after two hours, to continue the meeting at 6:30 a.m., on Oct. 17. Although the Board’s discussions were not made public, comments from the public made prior to the closed session, al­leged embezzlement, bul­­­ly­­ing and retaliatory tactics by Wall.

Also mentioned were staff reductions made ear­lier this year, which im­­pacted some 300 em­ployees, while the CEO re­ceived a pay raise a year into his four-year contract.

On the afternoon of Oct. 16, Wall issued a state­ment to hospital staff refuting allegations made during the public comment period, calling such statements “outright false­hoods and partial truths.”

 

On Oct. 17, both Boards met in the early morning session, which resulted in the decision to place Wall on paid administrative leave, while an inves­ti­gation continues.

 

But for some reason, this one task of the board appears to provide multiple challenges.  

The CEO in question and now "out" "was hired by the Antelope Valley Healthcare District Board under a four-year agreement in January 2017, following a Board turnover in the November 2016 election that led to the ouster of Alecto Healthcare Services management company, after 13 months.  The CFO was hired in March 2017.

On the other hand, perhaps the board should be complimented on recognizing that their first decision just didn't turn-out to be what it hoped.

Nonprofit Boards are Doing "It" All Wrong #NonprofitBoards

I just received the following email from the National Development Institute (NDI) aka Jimmy LaRose.  The missive weaves a tale about how nonprofit boards are doing "it" all wrong.  NDI proposes that basically, boards get "it" right if they would just turn everything over to the CEO and get out of the way.  Boards should be paid for their function and pretty much do what the CEO says is the correct way.  

I do not agree nor approve but you should be the judge.  Me, I have this old-fashioned concept that nonprofit boards are owners (surrogate) accountable to the public and have every interest in every thing NDI says should not be their interest PLUS what NDI says should be their interest.  You be the judge.  If you are loving what NDI has to say, feel free to join them and be part of their movmement

Here's a list of five NO-NOs when working with a nonprofit board: 1. "Let's have an annual retreat" (why waste a good weekend?) 2. "Let's hire someone to do board training" (why am I training my bosses?) 3. "Let's get our members to fund raise" (it's never worked...it never will) 4. "Let's recruit more board members" (why add to the crazy-making?) 5. "Let's vote on a having a feasibility study" (consultants are lying to you.)  Dear Colleagues In Service, I'm sharing this message with you this morning to affirm what you already know. Your Board of Directors is not your real problem nor is it your solution. When it's all said and done, there's one thing all boards have in common...THEY DO NOT FUNCTION. There's a better way. Allow me to explain. -Boardsmanship IS NOT Governance -Boardsmanship IS NOT Visioning -Boardsmanship IS NOT Policy-Making -Boardsmanship IS NOT Volunteerism -Boardsmanship IS NOT Management 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! 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.” 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. 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. 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. By the way, I've figured out this whole BOARD THING! Here’s how it works: Great boards do TWO things: They provide...ADVICE & ACCOUNTABILITY 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 9. Support the CEOs Vision (not the boards vision) 10. Provide CEO their expert advice Pamela Ballard, CNC National Development Institute

Nonprofit Embezzlement Impact Felt Long After #NonprofitBoards

While the lesson provided by the nonprofit that lost a few hundred thousand dollars appears to be a failing of trust, I wonder that the lesson the board should be addressing is how the embezzlement that is the subject of the following Lowell Sun news ever was even executed and why it took as long as it did to even be discovered.  Yes, there's lot's of pain to go around but the real pain is the failing or lack of checks-and-balance system that enabled the director to steal and hide the stealing.  Cave Tabula?

 

Chelmsford nonprofit criticizes light sentence for worker who embezzled By Alana Melanson, [email protected] UPDATED:   11/18/2018 06:35:16 AM EST       CHELMSFORD -- "Amy Young stole far more from LifeLinks than just money." That's the main sentiment conveyed in the victim impact statement the organization provided to Middlesex Superior Court in the criminal case against its former employee that concluded Wednesday. Young, of Lowell, pleaded guilty to larceny over $250 in connection with embezzling more than $136,000 from the organization from November 2011 through 2016 in a case prosecuted by the state Attorney General's Office. Young was sentenced to two years of probation and ordered that she not be employed in a fiduciary or financial capacity during that term. "We believe that the sentence imposed on Wednesday did not reflect the gravity of her actions, nor was it reflective of the impact that her actions had on LifeLinks," CEO Jean Phelps said in an emailed statement Friday. "We are however grateful that this (criminal) matter is closed." A civil suit against Young is ongoing. It remains unresolved despite a default judgment earlier this year that Young owes LifeLinks $288,139, the full amount Young is believed to have stolen over the 10 years she worked at the disability services nonprofit, plus interest. According to an excerpt of LifeLinks' victim impact statement provided to The Sun, the organization suffered in many ways due Young's actions "She stole part of our good name; by tarnishing our reputation which had been built by and with families beginning in 1954 and had never been sullied until this episode," the statement reads "She stole the trust and goodwill of our families," it continued. "Some families no longer believe that we can meet their needs. There are also a few who believed that Amy denied them access to goods and services so she could take them for herself instead." The statement went on to say that certain key staff members left because they "felt betrayed" and their trust was broken by what Young did and a feeling that LifeLinks did not do enough to punish her. Through her actions, Young damaged the organization's relationships with families, the state and the community at large, the statement said. "As we have learned, fraudulent activity casts a long shadow and colors all parts of our work now," the statement reads. Working to understand and recover from this episode has robbed the organization of time and productivity, according to the statement. Its people have been "wounded by the brazenness of her actions, dismayed by her callous indifference and angered by the scope of the thefts," the statement said. "The bonds of honesty and and integrity that tie us together in the work we do to support some of the most fragile people in our community were frayed and almost unraveled completely because of the actions of one person," the statement read. "We came perilously close to losing all our business because of Amy Young's selfish and self-serving actions." Young was hired at LifeLinks as a unit case manager in April 2006, and promoted to director of family supports in June 2013. In that role, she was responsible for managing and distributed through state Department of Developmental Services contracts for such client services as skill and literacy training programs, physical therapy, respite care, home equipment and modifications, events and recreation. According to the AG's Office, Young used her position for personal and family gain, forging documents to obtain checks her employer thought were for legitimate purposes to serve clients. LifeLinks' Finance Department uncovered the scheme in July 2016 upon requesting backup documentation on an already approved $2,200 check and $440 charge on Young's LifeLinks Visa card that were used to fund a sorority reunion party at a local bowling alley instead of client events later found to be fabricated. "On behalf of all of us who make up the organization of LifeLinks, I can only hope that the money she stole from us and the outcomes that followed for LifeLinks results in consequences as near perilous for Amy Young as they were for us," the excerpt of the victim impact statement closes.  Follow Alana Melanson at facebook.com/alana.lowellsun or on Twitter @alanamelanson.

Read more: http://www.lowellsun.com/news/ci_32278956/chelmsford-nonprofit-criticizes-light-sentence-worker-who-embezzled#ixzz5XJj32qBc

Board Recruitment Tips #NonprofitBoards

Bonnie Gwin of Heidrick & Struggles (which focuses on CEO and Board member recruitment for corporations), offers the following steps in particular when seeking to diversify your board:

1. Look beyond the usual candidate pool.  The ideal candidate does not have to be a CEO.  Consider general managers, division heads, presidents of universities, retired public servants who have led complex commands.  Consider also functional leaders whose expertise is relevant to a key area of your organization's strategy or entrepreneurs who have scaled a business. Earlier in career executives often bring sharp new insights into the boardroom, especially on technology and industry disruption.
2. Develop a game plan.  The most effective boards build a recruiting plan and methodically tackle it.  Often they get to know candidates BEFORE they can take a board role - investing in and developing a relationship.  They think creatively about their most strategic needs.  They ask major organizations for ideas.  And they execute a disciplined recruiting strategy.
3. Stay the course.  It is hard work to build a board.  Recruiting the right person takes time.  Insist on being presented a diverse slate that includes women.  And think about building a pipeline of ideas, not just recruiting one person today but if you identify several great candidates, consider adding them sooner than you might have planned.  Keep up the focus on identifying exceptional diverse candidates, even if you are not in active recruiting mode.

Nonprofit At Crosshairs of Doing Harm To Others #Nonprofit

I have regularly stated that at minimum a nonprofit's mantra should be to do no harm.  I recognize though that this may not be a reality for many nonprofits.  The Boy Scouts for instance have pretty much been one of the groups who, on some level do indeed "do no harm", for their constituents, but at the same time, have indeed done harm through their exclusionary policies (although purportedly this has changed by policy but one wonders given that troops have the choice to be exclusionary).  This leads me to wonder aloud whether, in general, the exclusionary preferences of nonprofits leave many of these institutions, the organizations that address where business have no perceived benefit to pursue and governments have no common mandate, always doing harm just by their existence.

My thinking rises to the forefront of today's considerations while reading a Wall Street Journal article about a Parent Teachers Organization that will be suing to ensure that their students continue to keep the upper advantage to entry into exclusive, high achieving, schools.  The basic story is that the Mayor is ruling that the one test that positions this schools students can't be the only criteria for entry into the next level of schools as it reduces the diversity of those who might otherwise also qualify for entry.  The Parents of course want their kids, many who are ethnically Asian, to not lose their proven advantage when the criteria to date has been to their advantage.

But, in agreeing to sue the policy, the Parents are on their own being exclusionary.  And like many nonprofits supported by one donor versus another, exclusion, particularly in a capitalist society, ensures some win while others do not.  So, nonprofit or not, equity and doing no harm takes a back seat.  Fair?  Probably not but then, neither is capitalism.

Here's the Wall Street Journal article.

 

 

 

Parents to Sue City Over Elite High-School Admissions

At one Brooklyn middle school, parents say city’s plan discriminates against Asian students

 

Parents at one of New York City’s highest-achieving middle schools voted Tuesday to forge ahead in a federal lawsuit to stop a city plan that some said could severely diminish their children’s chances of getting into coveted specialized high schools.

The Parent Teacher Organization at I.S. 187, known as the Christa McAuliffe School, took a voice vote of more than 90 members who came to a meeting to discuss the proposed suit. There was no opposition, and the crowd applauded the decision.

 

The selective, predominantly Asian school in the Borough Park section of Brooklyn is one of the top feeders to Stuyvesant High School and seven other specialized high schools.

Lawyers from the Pacific Legal Foundation, a California-based libertarian nonprofit funded by donors, said they would take the case pro bono as part of their mission to fight discrimination based on race.

They seek to challenge Mayor Bill de Blasio’s decision last summer to change the criteria for entering a program called Discovery, which offers admission, as well as tutoring, to low-income students who just missed the test-score cutoff for entry to specialized high schools.

The mayor’s changes to Discovery are aimed at reducing the number of Asian students in the specialized high schools, Joshua Thompson, a lawyer for the foundation, said in an interview. “We’re concerned the expansion of Discovery is done for the purpose, and has the effect, of discriminating against Asian kids,” he said.

The expansion, the mayor says, would boost geographic and racial diversity. His plan would set aside 20% of seats at each specialized high school for Discovery students, who will come only from certain high-poverty schools.

 

Judging by city data, students at Christa McAuliffe, where about 44% of students faced economic hardship in the 2016-17 school year, would no longer be eligible for Discovery. Currently, that program is small and available to disadvantaged applicants citywide.

 

This push for litigation marks the latest twist in a citywide debate about whether—and how—to change the admissions system for prestigious high schools that determine entry by a single test score. Mr. de Blasio wants Albany lawmakers to eliminate the entrance exam, saying it has been an unfair barrier to black and Hispanic students. Backers of the test say it is the most objective criteria.

At this point, the change in Discovery is the only element of the mayor’s broader diversity vision being instituted and so subject to litigation. Vito LaBella, president of the Christa McAuliffe Parent Teacher Organization, said the Discovery change is discriminatory. “I do believe our children would no longer be allowed to partake in Discovery,” he said.

The mayor contends he can make this change because the 1971 law on admissions at these high schools allows for a Discovery program of some sort. “Our reforms will expand opportunity and raise the bar at our specialized high schools,” said Department of Education spokesman Will Mantell by email. “Our schools are academically stronger when they reflect the diversity of our City.”

As a result of expanding Discovery, the department says offers to black and Hispanic students across the specialized high schools would nearly double, to about 16% of offers, from 9% now.

At Christa McAuliffe, 205 of its eighth-graders last year aced the admissions test and got offers to specialized high schools for this fall. Under the mayor’s goal of giving seats to the top 7% of performers at each middle school citywide, judging by state test scores and course grades, only about 24 of its students would have gained entry.

With roughly 900 students, about 36% of Christa McAuliffe’s eighth-graders headed to Stuyvesant, 20% to Brooklyn Technical High School, and 20% to Staten Island Technical High School, according to city data for the 2016-17 school year.

That year, 67% of the school’s students were Asian, 26% were white, 6% were Hispanic and 1% were black.

Write to Leslie Brody at [email protected]

Appeared in the November 14, 2018, print edition as 'Parents Consider Admissions Lawsuit.'

Doing wrong can lose you your board seats #NonprofitBoards

Maybe just because I haven't thought about this before but doing bad to or for other nonprofits may be criteria for other nonprofits to no longer keep you on their boards.  This is what happened to Peterkin Bell who, as The Inquirer story below below, has been found of "redirecting nonprofit funds under her charge."  Now, on the one hand, it's unlikely that Ms. Bell would have access to other nonprofit's funds from her board position (although admittedly there have been those who served on boards and were indeed able to pilfer funds) but removing a board member for bad actions at another nonprofit does give me pause.  I guess it kind-of makes sense based on an assumption that the individual in question has proven not to be fully trustworthy but does this inherently mean she wouldn't be trustworthy elsewhere?  This is singularly a question of course that a board must answer.  And even the process as to how this gets brought-up makes me wonder - is there a policy or procedure in-place for just such an occasion?  

Questions for the day......

 

 

POLITICS

Former Nutter aide Peterkin Bell loses board memberships, teaching gig after felony charges

by Claudia Vargas, Chris Brennan and Holly Otterbein, Updated: November 14, 2018- 7:10 PM

 

  A day after former City Representative Desiree Peterkin Bell was accused of stealing and misusing public funds through a city-run nonprofit, her name has already been scrubbed from organizations with which she had been involved.

Peterkin Bell's name was removed from the website for the state's Advisory Commission for African American Affairs. She resigned from that post in an email Monday afternoon, a spokesman said.

Her biography also no longer appeared on the website of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication, where she had been a lecturer in urban communications, teaching a course she designed.

"She will not be teaching at Penn in the future," a university spokeswoman said. "Her relationship with the Annenberg School has concluded."

 

Both were part of the backlash for the 40-year-old woman who over a decade built a strong resumé in Democratic and city government circles and now is seeing it collapse after being arraigned Tuesday on charges that she stole and misused $245,000 in taxpayer money.

Peterkin Bell has denied the accusations, which came after a 14-month grand jury investigation. "It's devastating professionally, as you can imagine," Peterkin Bell's attorney, Walter Weir Jr., said Wednesday, a day after she was released on her own recognizance.

The grand jury found that when Peterkin Bell oversaw the Mayor's Fund — a nonprofit intended to advance the mayor's policy goals — she charged $20,000 to the fund's credit cards for her personal use, including for shopping, vacations, and dinners at fancy restaurants. Investigators also said she took $225,000 in city money allocated to fund a cycling race and used it to pay debts for other events that she, as city representative, had been responsible for getting financed through donations or grants.

Peterkin Bell took on that role in 2012. Mayor Michael Nutter had hired her as his director of communications in 2010. She left in 2011 to work as a communications adviser in President Barack Obama's reelection campaign but returned the next year to City Hall.

 

As city representative, she became the de facto chair of the Mayor's Fund, which was supposed to advance the mayor's policy goals and promote the city with about $10 million annually in grants. She was paid a $165,600 salary.

The Inquirer and Daily News reported that in 2015, Peterkin Bell failed to offer detailed explanations for $52,000 worth of charges she made on American Express and Wells Fargo MasterCard credit cards issued by the fund.

When she left the job the following January, the executive director of the fund asked then-City Controller Alan Butkovitz to look at the grant-making policies of the fund. Butkovitz found that Peterkin Bell had treated the nonprofit like a "slush fund" and asked the state attorney general to investigate.

After leaving City Hall, Peterkin Bell had started her own public relations firm, DPBell & Associates. She also lists on her website that she is a founding member of the Walnut Club of Philadelphia, a business networking and social organization. (The grand jury report says Peterkin Bell used one of the Mayor's Fund's credit cards to pay $500 in annual dues for the Walnut Club.)

 

When reached Wednesday, Walnut Club president Marla McDermott said Peterkin Bell was a member of the club only for its first year.

"We have no affiliation with her. This whole situation is very unfortunate," McDermott said.

Among her other claimed affiliations was the Vision 2020 coalition, which works for the advancement of girls and women in the United States and listed Bell as one of its 13 Pennsylvania delegates. When contacted Wednesday, a coalition spokesperson said the delegates' "level of involvement varies, and Desiree Peterkin Bell's participation has been very limited in recent years."

The spokesperson, Kathleen McFadden, said the organization "will closely monitor ongoing developments related to these charges to best inform Peterkin Bell's future delegate status."

Peterkin Bell also mentions on her website that she is a member of the Union League of Philadelphia. Under rules at the club, she can be removed from the rolls only if other members file a complaint against her. It was unclear Wednesday if any had done so.

Peterkin Bell, who branded herself on social media with the hashtag #PurposeNotPosition, has touted her status as the author of two "best-seller" books. She contributed an essay for a book published last year by a company that charges some authors to participate. Peterkin Bell at the time said she had not paid to be published.

An avid Twitter user, Peterkin Bell continued tweeting and retweeting before and after her arraignment. But none of her tweets was related to her case.