Nonprofit Board Crisis

Nonprofit Boards Must Wrestle With Inequity #NonprofitBoards

Take a look at this infographic from the Daily Progress (VA).

Report: Pay, representation lags for women, people of color in local nonprofits

• KATHERINE KNOTT

When we see keep seeing these numbers we must ask: what are these nonprofit boards thinking?  They are certainly not thinking about their values nor providing the support their executive needs to act differently - more responsibly.  Boards, do you not consider yourselves irresponsible for this behavior?  And how is this different from yesterday's blog where we learned that Planned Parenthood  thoughout the US are discriminating against pregnant employees (ironic, no?).  

Let's start thinking about a change, NOW.

Where is the Board? #NonprofitBoard

One undisputed role for a nonprofit board is to ensure that policies and procedures are in-place and practiced to meet legal and values directional (aka mission) priorities.  Knowing that policies and procedures fail to meet and/or are practiced is not always a simple task.  Clearly a board must rely on its staff, aka CEO.  And of course, the board must ask for this information.  Failure to ask is irresponsible and more likely, fails to meet the standard of what is called-upon by fiduciary duty.

In comes Planned Parenthood: a large, important nonprofit that touches many communities.  Planned Parenthood is about women's health.  So, it should come as a surprise that its stated values and reputation conflict with what has been reported by some of its employees.  Planned Parenthood, according to the New York Times, frequently fails the needs of its pregnant employees.   Failure may even be to the point of discrimination but I think that's a matter for the court to debate and I would think, would likely violate federal EEOC regulations.

This failure though, to me, while executed by Planned Parenthood management, is in reality, a failure by the national and local boards (where this is occurring).   It is the Planned Parenthood board that sets the standards (values) for what happens to its employees.  It should be the board that asks the question and or receives regular reports on how employees are treated relative to law and values.  With the frequency for which pregnant Planned Parenthood employees report "bad treatment", a board should not be unknowing and it should take action, both from a policy framing but also to hold its management accountable.  I would also pose that if the board and management fail, donors will step-up and demand change and once again, the board will be called to action. 

All nonprofits would be wise to learn from the Planned Parenthood boards' failing.

Nonprofit CEOs: Is there a too long? #NonprofitBoards

The CEO of New York Public Radio announced today that she will be stepping down from her position in 2019 (WNYC).   Laura Walker is hailed by many as having created a sustainable station.  She also had a year where her own "stars" experienced the "me too" movement and much of the year has been spent repairing the damage done by her "male" staff.

Challenges aside, Ms. Walker has clearly had a good run that moves me to ask: why don't CEOs have term limits and if they did, what would is a reasonable term limit?  Alas I don't have the perfect answer to these questions but I do wonder why it's so important that board members have limits (which I strongly affirm) but CEOs do not?  I don't have the perfect answer for this either but am coming to believe that such limits applied to CEOs would likely be healthy for all those involved.  I would certainly think it likely that a proven CEO with a term limit (say 10 years) would be quite able to move to another nonprofit where they would continue to prove their amazingness.  And seeking a new staff can have equally good outcomes although there is a certain inherent risk in replacing CEOs that have been so amazing.  But really, would it be that bad?

No Joy In Mudville #NonprofitBoards

According to AOl, the Trump Foundation will be shutting its door and redistributing its assets following an ethics investigation by the NY Attorney General.  

No, I dare say, this is not a victory for the taxpayer!  Events like this do little more than ask all to be dubious about the benefits and intent of those who may be charitable.  And yes, as Mr. Trump has stated, this may well be one more attack against him by "sleazy New York Democrats" but this reality does not lessen his offenses against the taxpayer and against charity.  So we can not and should not celebrate as there is no joy "in Mudville" when individuals fail society.

Here's what AOL had to say:

President Donald Trump’s personal charity has agreed to shut down amid an ongoing ethics investigation, the New York attorney general announced on Tuesday.  The agreement follows a court ruling last month that a lawsuit filed against the Donald J. Trump Foundation by Attorney General Barbara Underwood will be allowed to move forward.

“Our petition detailed a shocking pattern of illegality involving the Trump Foundation — including unlawful coordination with the Trump presidential campaign, repeated and willful self-dealing, and much more,” Underwood said in a statement. “This amounted to the Trump Foundation functioning as little more than a checkbook to serve Mr. Trump’s business and political interests.”

As part of the agreement, the Trump Foundation will dissolve under judicial supervision. It will also be required to distribute any remaining charitable assets to reputable organizations approved by Underwood’s office. 

Underwood’s lawsuit seeks millions in restitution and penalties. It also seeks to prevent Trump and his three eldest children ― Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump ― from serving on the boards of other New York charities. 

 

The president vowed shortly after Underwood’s lawsuit was filed to fight the case, calling it the work of “sleazy New York Democrats.”

“I won’t settle this case!” he tweeted.

Workplace Harassment and Nonprofit Governance #NonprofitBoards

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a Federal government agency whose responsibility it is to enforce federal civil rights laws in the workplace.  There is a oversight body and in the National Law Review a brief article highlighted what has been the focus of the Commission.  One item of was particularly pertinent to nonprofits.

The Commission, in a June 2016 Task Force report on harassment in the workforce recommended that "nonprofit boards provide effective and ongoing oversight of CEOs to prevent and address workplace harassment."

Yes, as part of its fiduciary responsibility, a nonprofit board is responsible, wholly and severally, for enforcement of EEOC laws.   I believe, as part of its annual workplace compliance and risk prevention assessment, ensure that its policies and procedures are current.  The board should also ensure that a process is in place for learning about violations and resolutions.   

Nonprofit Board Members Don't Know They Are Board Members #Nonprofit Boards

I don't generally have much to say about nonprofit CEO salaries.  My usual position is that it is up to a nonprofit's board to determine what is a market rate and subsequently what is defensible by the board and to both the IRS (who sometimes care) and donors (who care more).  So the story about the current acting US Attorney General and his fairly high pay $500K for a 9-month period noting this is 1/2 of the nonprofit's annual revenues may get my attention if for no other resentment that this is not what I am able to earn.

But really, the part of this story that is most irksome has to do with other parts in the Washington Post article that noted conversations with board members who seemed not to know they were board members.  Never mind of course that said nonprofit was rebuilt from a former nonprofit with a different mission than the current organization and that donors give through a donor base that represents a singular "advocacy" perspective.  Not up-and-up - what do you think?  

So, how good do you feel that the guy currently and possibly for the future uses at least one nonprofit as a shell to either: make some extra money on the side (because the current and previous job doesn't pay so well; and/or, has a bunch of goals that can only be achieved through this nebulous nonprofit; and/or  really doesn't know how to work with volunteer leadership (aka a board) such that the members don't even know they are members?  Does anyone see yellow flags here?

Here's the article:

By Robert O'Harrow Jr. ,
Shawn Boburg and
Aaron C. Davis November 20
In the three years after he arrived in Washington in 2014, Matthew G. Whitaker received more than $1.2 million as the leader of a charity that reported having no other employees, some of the best pay of his career.

The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust described itself as a new watchdog nonprofit dedicated to exposing unethical conduct by public officials. For Whitaker, it became a lucrative steppingstone in a swift rise from a modest law practice in Iowa to the nation’s top law enforcement job. As FACT’s president, he regularly appeared on radio and television, often to skewer liberals.

But FACT’s origins and the source of funding used to pay Whitaker — now the acting attorney general — remain obscured. An examination of state and federal records, and interviews with those involved, show that the group is part of a national network of nonprofits that often work in concert to amplify conservative messages.

Contrary to its claims in news releases and a tax filing, the group was created under a different name two years before Whitaker’s arrival, according to incorporation and IRS records. At least two of the organizers were involved in another conservative charity using the same address.

In its application to the IRS for status as a tax-exempt organization, the organizers reported that the group would study the impact of environmental regulations on businesses, records show. In that incarnation, the group took no action and “only existed on paper,” one man named in IRS filings as a board member told The Washington Post. Another named in a state filing as a board member said he never agreed to be on the board.

What Matthew Whitaker has said about the Russia investigation
Over a series of 2017 interviews, acting attorney general Matthew G. Whitaker expressed skepticism about the Russia probe. (JM Rieger/The Washington Post)

Whitaker’s 2017 pay from the charity — more than $500,000 for the first nine months, or half the charity’s receipts for the year, according to tax filings — and the group’s earlier, dormant incarnation have not been previously reported by media.

Whitaker did not respond to requests for interviews. Justice Department spokeswoman Kerri Kupec declined to answer detailed questions about his involvement in FACT, referring a reporter to the charity.

A FACT spokesman who provided a statement on the condition that his name not be used declined to disclose the source of its funding.

“Like nearly all non-profit organizations — including those with similarly stated missions — FACT does not and is not required to release its donor information,” the statement said. “This protects free speech rights of all of these groups’ supporters as outlined in the First Amendment.”

The statement said that FACT “properly notified the IRS of its name change.”

“It is not unusual for a corporation, not for profit or profit, to refine its name and purpose, and since its inception FACT’s purpose has always been consistent with non-profit law and all appropriate notifications were made,” the statement said.

The spokesman did not respond to questions about whether the group told the IRS about its change in mission, as is required by IRS rules.

Lawmakers share mixed reviews on acting attorney general Whitaker
President Trump said Nov. 18 he would not stop acting attorney general, Matthew G. Whitaker, if he decides to curtail the special counsel probe. (Elyse Samuels /The Washington Post)

When the nonprofit was launched in 2012, Whitaker was a former U.S. attorney with a modest legal practice in Iowa that paid him $79,000 that year, according to a later disclosure he filed for a failed Senate bid. He also had several local side businesses, including a day-care center and a trailer manufacturer.

A Virginia resident named Raymond Wotring and two others filed papers to create the Free Market American Educational Foundation, state and federal records show. Its stated mission was to “conduct research and provide informational studies on free market concepts in relation to government regulations and policy.”

Wotring and one of the other founding members had also served on another conservative nonprofit, Americans for Limited Government, which shared the same mailing address, records show.

Wotring did not respond to multiple phone calls or to a note left at his home.

James Crumley, who provides marketing services to conservative nonprofits and campaigns, was listed in an IRS filing as one of the directors. In a phone call, he initially said he did not remember anything about the group, including why it was formed.

“I can only speculate since I didn’t even remember this group existed,” he wrote in an email later.

Crumley said he’d learned that the group held no meetings and apparently had no bank account in its first two years. “The organization only existed on paper and didn’t do anything at all,” he wrote.

Noah Wall, now a vice president of advocacy for a conservative nonprofit called FreedomWorks, was listed in Virginia state filings as a director of the group in 2014. Wall said he was surprised to learn of his role. He said he was approached by Wotring but never agreed to join.

“I never signed anything,” he said. “I’m not entirely sure what any of this is.”

On July 21, 2014, the IRS approved the group’s application for tax-exempt charity status, which was also signed by Wotring, the group’s secretary. In its application, the group said it would be nonpartisan and aim “to develop unbiased research on how government regulations on environmental policy can impact business.” The group by then had changed its address to a UPS Store in Fairfax, which was also used by Americans for Limited Government.

But just six weeks later, the newly approved charity changed its name, according to corporate records in Virginia. It was briefly called Working for Rights to Express & Communication.

The name was changed again in October of that year, to the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust, according to records in Virginia. That same month, Whitaker, who had lost a primary bid for a U.S. Senate seat, became the group’s leader, according to Kupec, the Justice spokeswoman.

The charity’s mailing address was moved from Virginia to an office suite at a prestigious spot on K Street in the nation’s capital — a virtual office and mailing address shared by 200 organizations.

Kupec did not respond to questions about how Whitaker connected with the nonprofit.

Marcus Owens, a lawyer and nonprofit specialist who oversaw the IRS’s exempt-organizations division for a decade, said that in its first years the nonprofit appears to have been a “shell charity” that “was not utilized and remained on the shelf” until Whitaker’s arrival.

Taking over an existing charity makes it easier for groups to quickly stand up the operation and accept tax-deductible donations, he said. But charities that change their names and missions are required to alert the IRS, he said, to ensure they are still operating within guidelines for charities.

“It’s very possible that this organization is misusing its status as a charity,” said David Nelson, a specialist on nonprofit organizations and a former tax partner at the Ernst & Young accounting firm, who reviewed the group’s tax filings at The Post’s request. “It appears the IRS never gave approval to FACT.”

In its federal tax filing for 2014, FACT declared that it had not changed its name or its mission that year, records show, and there was no mention of the prior names. The spokesman for FACT declined to provide documents that he said showed it had notified the IRS of the name change.

In the 2014 filing, FACT reported that it had no employees and that it paid Whitaker $63,000 for three months of work, 30 hours a week, as president and director. It received $600,000 in donations, the document shows.

The Post determined from other tax filings that the money came from DonorsTrust, a large nonprofit organization that wealthy contributors have used to anonymously give millions to conservative nonprofits in recent years.

The president of DonorsTrust, Lawson Bader, declined to identify the source of the funding contributed to FACT through his organization.

FACT launched its advocacy efforts shortly after Whitaker took over, describing itself in a news release as a “new watchdog group.”

On its website and in tax filings in 2014, FACT said that its mission was “to educate the public about unethical conduct on the part of public officials by publicizing these actions through media outlets throughout the country” and through its own website.

The new three-member board now comprised Whitaker, Whitaker’s former law partner and a conservative activist, Neil Corkery, who is involved in operating or funding multiple conservative charities.

Whitaker’s former partner, William Gustoff, did not return calls for comment. Corkery did not respond to phone messages seeking comment.

The IRS prohibits charities from directly or indirectly participating in political campaigns, for or against candidates. The prohibition is rarely enforced.

The FACT spokesman said the group is nonpartisan and focuses on Democrats and Republicans alike.

A Post analysis of more than 200 television and radio appearances by Whitaker from 2014 to September 2017, when he was named chief of staff to then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, shows that Whitaker was overwhelmingly focused on Democrats.

Whitaker or the often-conservative television hosts interviewing him uttered the name of one of the five Republican lawmakers that the group has targeted in elections complaints a combined 37 times, compared with more than 750 mentions of Hillary Clinton.

Most of those Clinton references — more than 600 — came in the run-up to the 2016 election, and nearly all were comments critical of Clinton’s tenure, including her email scandal or possible ethical conflicts surrounding the Clinton Foundation.

After the election, Whitaker’s focus in those interviews turned to another target, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. Whitaker or hosts named Mueller 185 times.

Tax filings show that one of FACT’s biggest contractors was America Rising, a research and communications firm in Arlington, Va., “whose mission is to help its clients defeat Democrats,” according to its website. FACT paid America Rising at least $500,000 for research from 2015 to 2017, tax filings show.

FACT paid another half-million dollars to CRC Public Relations in Alexandria, Va. The FACT representative who declined to be named in this report is a CRC executive.

In December 2014, FACT began posting news items and commentary on its new website, including the prediction that a super PAC formed to promote Clinton’s presidential aspirations might someday illegally coordinate with her future campaign.

“These moves will likely draw [Federal Election Commission] complaints due to possible federal election law violations,” the post says.

Whitaker, the face of the organization, was often in Iowa in those early months, according to a review of interviews he conducted at the time. But being the president of a nonprofit conferred legitimacy on him, helping to raise his profile in Washington even as it allowed the group’s backers to claim tax deductions.

He was increasingly appearing as a commentator on conservative media outlets — including Newsmax TV and Fox TV — and last year became a paid legal analyst on CNN.

In addition to targeting Clinton, Whitaker took aim at Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) while filing election law complaints against Democrats and some Republicans. When asked by a radio host about the group’s pursuit of Democrats, Whitaker said, “It is a target-rich environment.”

In the three years he worked at the charity, Whitaker’s pay rose sharply each year, tax filings show. Last year, he was paid $55,000 a month. In all, he earned $1,219,000 — more than a third of the donations the group received from 2014 to 2017.

An IRS spokesman declined to comment, citing federal privacy law.

Robert O'Harrow Jr.
Robert O’Harrow Jr. is an investigative and accountability reporter at the The Washington Post. Follow

Shawn Boburg
Shawn Boburg is a reporter for The Washington Post's investigative unit. He was previously an accountability reporter for the Metro section. He joined The Post in 2015. Follow

Aaron C. Davis
Aaron Davis is an investigative reporter who has covered local, state and federal government, as well as the aviation industry and law enforcement. Davis shared in winning the Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting in 2018. Follow

Nonprofit Board Composition: Influencers #NonprofitBoards

Board composition, that is, who should be sitting at a nonprofit's governing table, matters for a number of reasons.  One reality and a focus of many conversations this year, was how non-diverse nonprofit boards are.  So, while articles have abounded on this reality, few have highlighted what action should be taken other than "go be more diverse".  The following Entrepreneur article however does offer some pearls, or at least one pearl that speaks to a class of folks that coincidentally, likely results in increased board diversity.  That class: influencers.

Read on.

 

 

The Secret to Making Boards More Successful Is to Make Them More Approachable

Boards sometimes overlook a prime member of their audience: the person on the receiving end.

Barrett Wissman

GUEST WRITER

Chairman of IMG Artists and Principal in Two Pillar Management

 

December 13, 2018 5 min read

Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

Many industries and organizations have seen their boards undergo massive change in recent years. Whether this is due to new compliance regulations or simple retirements, shifting the make-up of a board can have big consequences.

And some have actively pursued new members to pump new blood -- and fresh perspectives -- into their organizations. PwC found that 91 percent of directors feel diverse boards are more effective, and 84 percent believe a diverse set of board members increases company performance.

PwC did a little more digging into nine individual industries, and it found that while my industry, entertainment and media companies, are responsible for a wide range of issues -- content distribution, customer engagement, data collection and technology application -- not a single entertainment organization it studied had a risk committee. These committees, intended to evaluate and mitigate risks on the horizon, are especially valuable for companies worried about everything from piracy to data privacy.

The key, I think, is to consider at a new group of potential board members: influencers. Influencers can both increase a board’s diversity and help it recognize risks.

Related: 5 Reasons Why Even Small Companies Need a Board of Directors

What board composition do you need?

A board of directors is typically built by bringing together people with the skills, experiences and perspectives necessary to make an organization successful. By definition, each organization’s board will look different from the next. An environmental nonprofit may seek people with wildlife and fisheries experience, people with backgrounds in oil or other natural resources and scientists. A retail kids’ brand may build a board around people who have been marketers, buyers, parents and pediatricians.

Board composition considerations often result in a good mix of people who have the knowledge to advise on developing a service or product, as well as how to scale efforts and market them wisely. Sometimes, however, the diversity question overlooks a prime member of the audience: the person on the receiving end.

I wrote in ReadWrite about how many arts boards appoint members of the society pages to join them. This, of course, rewards people who helped fund arts opportunities, but loading arts-oriented boards with people of similar perspectives frequently creates a divide between what different members of the art-supporting community need or want. People of different demographic groups -- in terms of age, income and more -- may have very different expectations. Failing to meet those expectations risks decreased engagement and, ultimately, funding.

To counter that tendency, I recommend that boards consider adding influencers to their ranks. These people are on the front lines of culture in one way or another who have earned their fans' trust. They’re approachable, and their entire platform is built on their ability to communicate with and listen to the people who follow them. By default, people see them as “real,” and they can serve as valuable middlemen, navigating what a board’s audience wants and what the board itself needs to accomplish.

Related: A Bad Board of Directors Can Ruin Your Company -- Here's How to Make Sure It Doesn't Happen to You

Recruiting influencers to your board.

Adding influencers to a board demands a look at both diversity and risk. Someone who understands an organization’s audience and has gained the trust of that audience is likely in a good position to assess risk.

For example, an influencer who’s noticed that fans in a specific demographic are leaving one social media platform for another can signal that reallocating marketing spend would be a smart move. Likewise, an influencer being inundated with questions about a new piece of legislation can start a conversation about building a campaign to educate audience members and diminish fears. Being knee-deep in the day-to-day gives these influencers insights that are helpful to boards, but difficult to obtain.

Identifying influencers who are relevant to a specific organization’s goals is one thing; attracting them is another. Here’s how you can pique their interest.

Show them why they should care.

Just like celebrity influencers, other influencers want to know why you’re interested in them specifically -- what’s in it for them? While it’s important to talk about the value they can bring to the board and the organization as a whole, also let them know how they could benefit. Would they gain a new audience? Would they reinforce their credibility in a certain area?

Highlight how their followers will benefit.

An influencer's platform is enormously valuable -- and they know it. They won’t risk it for something less than worthwhile, so understanding why their followers would benefit from their board membership can be key. Can they advocate for new venues? Can they become the face of a new line of products their fans want?

Related: Top 9 Digital Influencers Who Cast A Spell Over Millennials On Twitter

Paint a picture of long-term possibilities.

A lot of influencers are big on building something, whether it’s a community or a nonprofit. Talk up the possibilities that await if the board can address specific needs or meets its goals: driving enough revenue to create a new art program, hiring an expert to build new tech capabilities, building a second arm for a charity at the local level. These opportunities will appeal to influencers as much as the current opportunity.

Influencers bring new perspectives to boards, helping them get away from their myopic view. Their fresh outlook can also help them spot problem areas and long-term risks that loom, preventing their organizations -- and their followers -- from future disappointment. By giving them a seat at the table, organizations could find themselves in a much better place.

Boy Scouts to Earn New Badge #NonprofitBoards

Proving they aren't everything they say they are, Boy Scouts USA, facing declining memberships and lawsuits from sexual abuse, are considering what I believe to be a "cowards way out": bankruptcy.  Yup, the institution that has done good and not so good things for boys and not so good things for gay men, have determined that the financial demands being placed on them now and in the immediate future are too much for them to handle.  And why "cowards way out"?  Bankruptcy allows an organization to pay its debt or least not fully.  Bankruptcy permits an organization's owners to "hide" behind the law and not be fully responsible for bad decision-making (which includes no longer being current for those who might be Scouts).  In my opinion, the Boy Scouts have done this to themselves and the board in particular should not be left off the hook through bankruptcy.  Bankruptcy for individuals and small businesses is one thing but bankruptcy for institutions presumably with this experience and knowledge via the board - no excuse!  The board needs to go out and earn this merit badge!

Here's the Wall Street Journal https://www.wsj.com/articles/boy-scouts-of-america-considers-bankruptcy-filing-amid-sex-abuse-lawsuits-11544649657?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=2.

Boy Scouts of America Considers Bankruptcy Filing Amid Sex-Abuse Lawsuits

Nonprofit has hired law firm Sidley Austin for assistance in a possible chapter 11 bankruptcy filing

Boy Scouts of America says that more than 110 million people have participated in its educational programs. PHOTO: GEORGE FREY/GETTY IMAGES

32 COMMENTS

By 

Katy Stech Ferek

Updated Dec. 12, 2018 5:42 p.m. ET

 

The Boy Scouts of America is considering filing for bankruptcy protection as it faces dwindling membership and escalating legal costs related to lawsuits over how it handled allegations of sex abuse.

Leaders of the Boy Scouts, one of the country’s largest youth organizations, have hired law firm Sidley Austin LLP for assistance with a possible chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, according to people familiar with the matter.

 

Founded in 1910, the Boy Scouts group says that more than 110 million people have participated in its educational programs, which promote outdoors skills, character-building and leadership.

The Boy Scouts have been at the center of sexual-abuse scandals in the past, and the organization is facing a number of lawsuits that allege inappropriate conduct by employees or volunteers in incidents dating back as far as the 1960s. Filing for bankruptcy would stop the litigation and would give the nonprofit a chance to negotiate with those who have sued.

Other organizations facing similar legal pressure have also turned to bankruptcy protection in recent years. More than 20 Catholic dioceses and religious orders have filed for chapter 11 protection to negotiate payouts to thousands of victims. And last week USA Gymnastics, the governing body for the sport, filed for bankruptcy as it faces lawsuits from decadeslong sexual abuse by the national team’s former doctor Larry Nassar.

The Boy Scouts released a letter to its employees Wednesday that said it plans to “explore all options available to ensure that the local and national programming of the Boy Scouts of America continues uninterrupted.”

Participation in the organization’s programs has fallen in recent years, though the group opened some of its programs to girls and transgender boys. The Boy Scouts currently have more than 2.3 million youth members. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, formerly one of the group’s largest sponsors, has said it will withdraw from Boy Scout programs. The church said it would develop its own program for young men.

The Boy Scouts group has drawn scrutiny over its slow pace to become more inclusive, including by lifting a ban in 2015 on gay men and lesbians serving in leadership roles.

 

 

The group has also dealt with fallout from its decision last year to expand its recruitment of girls, putting it in competition with the Girl Scouts of the USA, a separate group that offers similar programming and has also seen membership fall.

In November, the Girl Scouts filed a trademark lawsuit against the organization, saying its push for girls to join caused confusion and led to instances in which parents mistakenly signed their children up for Boy Scouts programs.

A Boy Scouts spokeswoman said the group is reviewing the lawsuit and that the expansion came “after years of requests from families who wanted” to participate in its programs.

In recent years, the Boy Scouts group’s legal bills for work done by some outside law firms have grown. In 2017, the organization paid $7.6 million to labor and employment law firm Ogletree Deakins, according to public filings. It paid Ogletree $3.5 million in 2016 and $859,347 in 2015, the filings show.

In the group’s latest annual report, Boy Scout officials said its future financial situation will partly depend on the outcome of sex-abuse-related litigation and future damages awarded. One lawsuit unfolding in Idaho over alleged abuse by several former leaders is set for a jury trial in May.

The organization has said that it has never knowingly allowed a sexual predator to work with youth members and has put rules in place to strengthen protections.

In the annual report, officials said they were “aware of threatened and expanding litigation of a similar nature.” They added that the group’s financial health will also depend on how much of the litigation costs will be covered by insurance.

The organization has sued its insurers at least twice since 2013, accusing them of failing to cover costs related to previous sex-abuse lawsuits. In its annual report, organization leaders said the latest lawsuits could force the group “to pay damages out of its own funds to the extent the claims are not covered by insurance or if the insurance carriers are unable or unwilling to honor the claims.”

—Jonathan Randles contributed to this article.

Write to Katy Stech Ferek at [email protected]

 

Zombie Johnson Amendment Repeal Is Back #NonprofitBoards

Still want faith bodies and nonprofits to be freely political and accept donor money that would have otherwise been spent through bodies that actually are intended for political purposes?  The Johnson Amendment Repeal is back on the table and unless your board and volunteer's voices are heard (because right now under the Johnson Amendment you can't use your voice), this zombie of a proposed policy will live forever.  And yes, there is good news - the political theater curtain is almost drawn - at least this year.

According to Politico:

By BRIAN FALER

 

12/10/2018 07:28 PM EST

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

House Republicans released a substantially revised year-end tax bill today, though the odds of it reaching President Trump’s desk seem to have only gotten longer.

Facing complaints from conservatives, Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), the chamber’s top tax writer, added some of their top priorities, including language repealing the decades-old Johnson amendment, which bars nonprofits from engaging in political activities.

 

So, it may not need a huge voice but it won't hurt to let your representatives know that repeal is just plain bad politics.

Board Meeting Minutes #NonprofitBoards

Very few folks WANT to be the Board Secretary.  They view the job as tedious and one that caries the requirement that some document be produced after EVERY meeting.  I also recognize that for many, taking notes is perceived as a distraction from full meeting participation.  On the other hand, there are those who find being Secretary allows them to participate without actually having to be really active during the meeting.  Funny how this can work.  And yes, there are some additional duties that are often highlighted in the by-laws but not ones that I think particularly odious.

Anyway, I would pose that part of the challenge facing those who would be Secretary is an uncertainty about how much they really need to record in the way of minutes.  My simple rule: you have to know who is in the room, what precisely is being voted on and what is the result.  While it can be helpful to know context and background, committees could support this with their reports ASSUMING the board only makes decisions when they are fully informed or at least have had some party "vet" the question.

The folks over at BoardEffect aka Diligent (they bring you the on-line board portal), have put some good thought into meeting minute taking and you can download their wisdom, for free!  Here's a link:

https://diligent.com/how-to-take-board-meeting-minutes?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=US%20-%20Content&utm_term=%2Bboard%20%2Bminutes%7cb&utm_content=256892065884&_bk=%2Bboard%20%2Bminutes&_bt=256892065884&_bm=b&_bn=g&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI_erfvcOa3wIVg5yzCh0gwwWrEAAYAyAAEgJhavD_BwE