Nonprofit Board Crisis

Color Defines Capacity To Make Change? #NonprofitBoards

A "study" conducted by Koya Leadership Partners and published in Fast Company suggests that the reason nonprofit boards aren't diverse is that the majority white folks running the boards don't know how to make their boards diverse.  Hm....me thinks this a lame excuse given that the white board folks interviewed are, from what I can gather, some pretty wealthy if not saavy people... or maybe not so saavy?

Anyway, the small sample of 102 of Koya's clients is not a problem and pretty much represents findings from other studies on diversity - that is that the majority of nonprofit board members are not people of color.  The conclusions...another story.

Here's the article:

 

 

The people running nonprofits continue to be rich, white, and unsure how to change that

Nonprofit boards know abstractly that diversity is important, but very few of them do anything about it.

 

BY BEN PAYNTER2 MINUTE READ

The vast majority of nonprofit board members say they believe that having a diverse set of leaders is important. They’re just not doing anything to actively encourage it.

That’s the major takeaway from a recent survey called “The Governance Gap” by Koya Leadership Partners, an executive search firm that works with mission-driven clients. Overall, 90% of board members interviewed said they felt leadership diversity was critical to success, but fewer than than 50% had taken any steps to boost inclusion among their own boards. To arrive at that data, Koya polled 102 of its own clients. “It became clear to us as a firm, and all of us individually as we worked with boards, that there’s a huge gap between what boards often say they want in a leader, and what they themselves represent and how they operate,” says Molly Brennan, a founding partner.

Part of the problem is that seemingly well-intentioned board members may be trapped in their own bland feedback loop. “Typically, you’re working with a group of high-net-worth white folks who don’t have an understanding of why their organizations and groups aren’t diverse, and what it takes to actually attract people of color into these roles, and their own responsibility to help lead the way for their organization,” she adds.

That problem obviously exists across a range of group budgets and cause work. For this effort, more than 80% of those surveyed belonged to organizations with budgets in the $25 million or less range. A little over 40% of the organizations surveyed spent less than $5 million annually. The largest nonprofit topic areas represented included health and social service work, followed by education, youth services, and arts and culture groups, among others.

Overall, about a quarter of Koya’s survey respondents were people of color. The report notes that portion is actually higher than the sector-wide board average, which BoardSource reported as 84% white, with 27% of all boards lacking even one person of color.

Either way, some of the findings were still bleak: In general, 61% of respondents didn’t feel their board adequately reflected the community it intended to serve. Another 70% weren’t happy with their current level of leadership diversity and inclusion. The majority of organizations also didn’t have any written policy about encouraging diversity at the board level, or related training about how to achieve it. Less than half of all groups even evaluated their current level of diversity efforts.

“Boards know it’s important, they know it’s a responsibility, but they really don’t know what to do,” says Brennan. Boards who want to change that need to commit to a “path of education” to understand how to create opportunities for inclusion, eliminate their own inherent bias, and make sure that as a variety of people are better represented, they’ve created an environment where their advice is actually welcomed and acted upon.

The report shares some strategies that have worked for a few nonprofits, starting with self-evaluation. “You can actually put your board through the exercise of saying, ‘Let’s look at who we are as a group and figure out what we bring to the table, not just in terms of race and gender, but also in terms of geography, background, skills, perspectives, and connections to the mission,'” she adds. Once everything is mapped out, it’s easy to see gaps. Then you can work on figuring out how to fill them, which is probably someone you don’t know yet. As Brennan put it, “To get serious about recruiting, [you have to] move beyond the usual suspects in your social circle.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ben Paynter is a senior writer at Fast Company covering social impact, the future of philanthropy, and innovative food companies. His work has appeared in Wired, Bloomberg Businessweek, and the New York Times, among other places.

 More

Distribution of Wealth Informs Which Nonprofits Can Survive #NonprofitBoards

Nonprofit news nonprofits, in my opinion, followed closely the demise of the corporate media as advertising and subscription sales shrank and on-line "news" grew.  The nonprofit structure would become, it was thought, the panacea to this dilemma.  While I poo-pooed this thinking with an understanding that donors too lose interest, another reality is hitting home with the now many nonprofit news sources.  In a capitalist society there will always be an uneven distribution of wealth between the haves and the have less if anything.  So too, the LA Times article underscores this reality promoting the bigger/older nonprofit news medias to adopt some traditional fundraising strategies beyond foundations to keep sustainable. 

I would pose however that this reality is not unique to nonprofit media but to all nonprofits - there is an uneven distribution of wealth among nonprofits, period.  That this will always be the case is likely.  That multi-tiered sustainability strategies are essential is a certainty.  That all cannot survive is also a certainty.  This said, take a closer look at the findings about nonprofit media in this LA Times article.

Is Nonprofit Only About Being Able to Get Free Money? #NonprofitBoards

I believe that one of the primary elements that makes a nonprofit a nonprofit is its ownership: a group of citizens dedicated to a mission and willing to do what it takes to ensure mission is pursued and accomplished.  This "community" ownership means that whatever revenues are generated they do not go into the pockets of the owners but instead back into the community, mostly through more or continued services.

The following LA Times article about a Houston for profit incubator that is going nonprofit does not laud the community ownership but effectively labels the for-profit a wimp as it couldn't sustain itself as a for profit.  Many folks quoted in the article speak of the implications of a for profit turning nonprofit sending the wrong message that they can't compete like most of the businesses being incubated must do for their sustainability.  The nonprofit is touted as being dependent on grants and not a real business - really competitive.  

But, nonprofit is not about not being able to make it as a for-profit.  Nonprofit is about filling the void that is left when the incentives for profit are not evident or taxpayers have different priorities.  This failure in the market place is what drives the existence of the nonprofit which must also face sustainability challenges.   But before you reach a conclusion, take a look at the article.  And oh, I think this article is an excellent "textbook" for engaging your nonprofit board in a generative conversation about purpose as a nonprofit and sustainability.

Here's the article:

                Startup hub Station Houston reincorporates as nonprofit

 

By BY ANDREA LEINFELDER| ASSOCIATED PRESS |JAN 10, 2019 | 11:00 AM

|

Station Houston, one of the city's most prominent startup hubs, has reincorporated as a nonprofit, the latest reboot in Houston's continuing quest to find the right formula to create a vibrant technology and innovation scene. 

The Houston Chronicle reports Station Houston, founded just over two years ago as a for-profit company, says becoming a nonprofit will allow it to attract more funding from grants and foundations to augment what it earns from charging fees to big corporations, such as energy companies, seeking introductions to new technologies. The change, executives said, will provide more money to invest in programs that spur local entrepreneurs and turn innovative ideas into successful businesses. 

But technology analysts say that Station Houston risks losing the edge that makes innovation happen. In general, for-profit organizations thrive if they can cultivate startups that attract investment then get bought by bigger companies or become publicly traded. Nonprofits, however, could rely on fundraising to survive even if their startups don't succeed. 

"An active startup ecosystem is not looking for grant dollars," said Marc Nathan, who publishes the Texas-Squared Startup Newsletter and previously worked with Houston entrepreneurs. "They're not begging. They're earning their money through making successful companies." 

Houston, as it seeks to diversify its oil-dependent economy, has aspired in recent years to build a technology cluster. But like many cities outside established tech centers such as Silicon Valley, Boston and Austin, progress has not come easily. An earlier tech accelerator program focused on energy software shuttered in 2016, and about half the startups affiliated with it left the city. 

The acceleration program of the Houston Technology Center was closed after the tech center was folded into a new organization called Houston Exponential in 2017 to centralize and coordinate efforts to promote Houston's technology sector, include raising an investment fund to help attract venture capital for local startups. Houston Exponential has raised half of its $50 million goal for the fund. 

But the tech community keeps trying. Newer organizations are trying to make Houston a hotbed for esports or medical technologies. And Rice University last year announced an innovation district in the former Sears building in Midtown, in which Station Houston is a partner to provide programming for entrepreneurs. 

Gaby Rowe, CEO of Station Houston, said that becoming a nonprofit will help the organization extend and broaden its reach, including a new initiative, called Station 3.0, that includes a stronger focus on industrial and business-to-business entrepreneurs to take advantage of Houston's strengths as a global corporate center and a new in-house business accelerator program concentrating on energy, industrial and transportation startups. 

Its new accelerator program will focus on energy, industrial and transportation startups. The three-month program, with three weeks at Station Houston and nine weeks remote, will culminate with a pitch competition. It will not take equity in startups. 

Rowe said the accelerator is, essentially, a condensed time frame of the coursework already offered by Station Houston. It's ideal for companies needing a shorter time frame or for those based outside of Houston that want access to the city's large industrial corporations. 

Station Houston is also in talks with nationally recognized accelerators that could operate from within Station. 

"We want everybody to be able to be part of the Station community," said Rowe, who has been CEO for five months, "so we can grow with the (innovation) ecosystem and help the ecosystem grow." 

Other tech development programs, including the 1871 startup hub in Chicago and the MassChallenge accelerator based in Boston, have succeeded as nonprofits, said Rowe. They have managed to maintain the drive needed to get startups to the next levels of funding, product development and commercialization. 

The transition to a nonprofit received unanimous support from Station Houston board members. 

Rowe said that Station has created measures to keep the organization aligned with its profit-making roots and to calm any concerns that becoming a nonprofit would lead the organization to rely on fundraising rather than the success of its entrepreneurs. Investors voiced support for the nonprofit model. 

"For Station Houston to continue to make an even larger impact on the innovation climate in this city," said investor Harvin Moore, principal at advisory and investment firm Frontera Technology Ventures, "a nonprofit format makes sense to get to that next level." 

But Ed Egan, the former director for Rice University's McNair Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation, disagreed. He had previously praised Station Houston for boosting venture capital investment in the city's startups. When Station Houston debuted in 2016, Houston ranked 39th among U.S. cities in venture capital activity. 

The city climbed to 29th during the first half of 2018, in large part because of Station Houston, said Egan, now a professor at the McDonough School of Business at Georgetown University . 

But he expects such advances will be lost. Startups in for-profit entrepreneurial accelerators, hubs and incubators tend to raise more venture capital money than startups in similar nonprofit organizations. Ten of the country's top 12 accelerator programs — defined by the number of startups they assist and the amount of money those startups raise — are for-profit, he added. 

"By becoming a nonprofit, they are saying that they can't compete," Egan said. "We don't want people who can't compete running Houston's ecosystem." 

Other academics who study innovation and entrepreneurship say that the right model for a tech development program often depends on the goals. For-profit accelerator programs, which typically take small ownership stakes in the startups they accept, are probably better at finding the most promising companies and helping them attract venture capital. Nonprofits tend to do better at promoting the broader innovation ecosystem, rather than specific companies, some academics said. 

"There are trade-offs in each one," said Jorge Guzman, who teaches entrepreneurship strategy at Columbia Business School. 

SJ Maxted, director of strategic initiatives for The Engine, which helps develop advanced technology startups in the Boston area, doesn't think for-profit or nonprofit status is the most critical element. Every entrepreneurial community needs both. 

"Both models serve very important roles," she said. "You can't have an ecosystem that has all for-profit, and you can't have an ecosystem that's all nonprofit. So you have to have a mix." 

Nonprofit Board Members Leave Their Business Brains At the Door #NonprofitBoards

"The board …is ultimately responsible for the success of the nonprofit. Too often, it's been said, smart people leave their brains at the doorstep when they enter a civic meeting." (Willamette Week) Ouch!  Harsh but real words from a patron of an institution that must close its doors for lack of funds and what this donor appears to believe - not a board that was wearing its business or even common sense brains.

This story focuses on the Oregon College of Art and Craft and a death blow being given by Portland State University.  The University, after conducting its due diligence has determined it will not acquire the College.  This decision means there are no options remaining.  And as the same donor quoted at the beginning of this blog notes: "Call it a day late and a dollar short," says real estate investor Jordan Schnitzer, who, with his family, has been a patron of OCAC and became involved in efforts to save the college after learning of the school's financial woes."  Mr. Schnitzer also noted that the "problems identified by the Portland State University in taking on OCAC "should offer a potential warning to nonprofit boards".

And yes, this is a warning to all nonprofit boards.  Strategic and generative thinking would have served this board much better than just thinking wearing a fiduciary hat.  Boards should know and understand the difference recognizing that month-to-month analysis barely tells a board much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nonprofits Too Old to Go On? #NonprofitBoards

In Bowling Alone (2000), Robert Putnam identifies the decline of social institutions as members of Society go inward and reclusive (my summary, not his precisely).  In more recent years, funders in particular but many others in the nonprofit sector decry the never-ending proliferation of new nonprofits with the belief that too many, aka more, is not good for anyone.  My opinion: somewhere in between and it is really up to donors to scream "uncle or aunt" that too much is too much and consumers to say they have chosen an alternative way to meet their needs.  

Take for example the faith community.  Many, many faith communities have been experiencing a decline in memberships but there are others (e.g. mega-churches) that are doing just fine, at least for now, thank you very much.  Today''s New York Times tells of a Dutch church in New York that is still trying to survive despite a significantly shrunken membership and a building that has cost oodles of money in repairs.  

It would certainly not be unreasonable, in my opinion, to reclaim the church as a historical building meant to tell the story about those who came to worship and live in this geography.  But the religious need?  Throughout the article the message from the few remaining parishoners: we need young people.  And true, the church's survival as a religious institution really is dependent on young finding their way.  But what happens when youth do not find their way?  Sometimes, the naysayers against nonprofit proliferation and survival for the sake of survival are correct - we just have to let them go.

I

Can a Church Founded in 1677 Survive the 21st Century?

By Rick Rojas

• Jan. 11, 2019
•  

[What you need to know to start the day: Get New York Today in your inbox.]

The stone church has been in Brooklyn for almost 200 years, and it was easy to tell. The floor creaked under worshipers’ feet as they made their way to a pew, and a plaque in the vestibule commemorated past members who had fought in the Great War.

Many who gathered for a recent Sunday morning service had been part of the congregation of New Utrecht Reformed Church for decades. Still, as they sang and prayed and wandered the aisles to offer peace to one another, many felt like they were acclimating themselves to the sanctuary. They had been locked out for some 15 years, as a renovation project swelled into an epic overhaul. They have only been allowed back inside to worship in recent weeks.

“Welcome to God’s house,” the Rev. E.J. Emerson, the church’s pastor, said at the start of the service. The sanctuary was new to her, too. She had arrived six years ago, and until now, the space had been filled with scaffolding and tools. She had led services in a hall next door.

 

The church, which was built about 190 years ago, had been closed for 15 years as it underwent an epic overhaul.CreditVictor J. Blue for The New York Times

 

 

Bensonhurst, the neighborhood that surrounds the church, reflects the churn that has defined parts of New York City like this one for generations, as new arrivals imported traditions from home. On the streets nearby, there is an Italian deli and a store specializing in Mexican and Central American fare, and there are many signs etched with Chinese characters.New Utrecht Reformed Church, with its sprawling green lawn in an otherwise packed urban setting, is a relic of an even more distant past, summoning a time when the area was a village and congregants were largely farmers. As the neighborhood evolved, the church was a constant presence. And now there is hope that by opening its doors again, the sanctuary can help secure the congregation’s existence for at least one more generation.

“We just felt we had to be in this building,” Pam Ander, a congregant who helped oversee the renovation, said.

The congregation was established in 1677, only a few decades after the Dutch settlement of Brooklyn started. At the most recent sanctuary, which was built about 190 years ago, the aging roof had started to sag, deteriorating to the point where safety became a concern.

In 2003, the church closed for what was anticipated to be a relatively straightforward project: the replacement of some roof trusses. But as church officials described it, old buildings are filled with secrets, and the church’s were plentiful and costly. Eventually, layers of scaffolding filled the church, the organ’s pipes were removed, holes were poked in the walls, and brick was exposed. The inside, Ms. Ander said, looked “like London after the blitz.”

The renovation included replacing cedar shakes on the roof and figuring out a more affordable way to restore the barrel-vaulted ceiling. The building is designated as a city landmark and is on the National Register of Historic Places, which helped qualify it for state grants to fund portions of the $2 million project. Still, the church had to fund-raise and sell its parsonage to cover costs.

The work is not finished. Netting hangs behind the altar, where the organ alcove will remain undone until more money can be raised.

 

 

“We need to get young families,” Susan Hanyen, a churchgoer, said, noting that the congregation of about 40 people was aging.

Part of the motivation for the overhaul was to preserve the church and its grounds, which offer a rare artifact from Brooklyn’s earliest days.

Only a few landmarks remain from hundreds of years ago, when New Utrecht was its own town, said David Elligers, president of the Friends of Historic New Utrecht. “We believe in this history and in the importance of this building,” he said.

The grounds include the Liberty Pole, a monument near the sanctuary with a history dating back to 1783, marking the departure of British soldiers. And there is the cemetery, filled with well-known monikers — Nostrand, Ditmas, Van Brunt — so old they are more associated with streets and neighborhoods than the families who lent their names.

“We’re lousy with history,” one congregant, Susan Hanyen, said of the abundance.

Yet for Ms. Hanyen, the effort was about more than history. The church, in her mind, was not a museum. Her aim was sustaining a congregation that has endured for 341 years, but has arrived at a challenging moment: It is aging and dwindling, and now has about 40 members. The crowd at Sunday services has been mostly the same for decades.

“I’m a newcomer,” Ms. Ander said. “I’ve only been here since 1986.”

 

 

The decline, she said, could be attributed in part to the years spent worshiping in the church hall, which perhaps turned off those who sought a more traditional experience, with pews and a towering ceiling.

The church has had pet blessings, bake sales and, recently, a live nativity with farm animals to draw neighbors inside.

A“We do anything we can outside to get attention,” said Ms. Hanyen, who is a member of the church’s consistory, or elders board. “Anything we can do to get people to know we’re alive and well and welcoming.”

“We need to get young families,” she added. The hope is that the restored sanctuary will lure them.

Pastor Emerson maintained a sanguine outlook. Her mission was to create a comfortable and uplifting environment. “Is it my obligation to grow the church?” she said. “No, God’s spirit will do that.”

 

Pastor Emerson said church is about more than a physical structure. “It’s the congregation,” she added, “the people, the presence of God’s spirit.” Even so, she could not help but be impressed the first time she climbed the steps to the pulpit. She sensed the history surrounding her.

“It is exhilarating,” she said, “and it is awesome, and I don’t use that word as a throwaway. It is awesome.”

No more than two dozen people (and one longhaired Chihuahua named Princess, a regular attendee) assembled for the recent Sunday service. They did not come close to filling the church, which could hold several hundred people with its rows of pews and horseshoe balcony. They sang “Joy to the World,” and Pastor Emerson gave a sermon warning the worshipers of darkness in the world and called on them to be a source of light.

Then she solicited their intercessions. One by one, congregants listed off coming medical tests, a son-in-law’s dire health situation, a request for help settling into a new neighborhood. She jotted them all down. A soft light bled through the stained-glass windows and flooded the church as she stood at the pulpit and led her congregation in prayer.

Rick Rojas has been a staff reporter for The New York Times since 2014. He has been a regional correspondent for the Metro staff covering New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, and has reported from The Times' bureaus at 1 Police Plaza and in Phoenix and Sydney, Australia. @RaR

Nonprofit vs. For-Profit Social Enterprise #NonprofitBoards

Ten years ago, upon hearing the plan, I said, there's no way this will work.  "This" was a plan by Panera, the food chain, to make cafes that were established as "pay what you will" enterprises.  Everything would be the same EXCEPT that patrons could pay what they wanted.

Sadly or correctly, I was correct.  I figured that the only way this would work was if Panera subsidized the operation as more folks who had no money would want to eat than those who did.  Lo and behold and perhaps not surprising, that's what evolved.  And now, all but one is closed.

Surprised, absolutely not!  The US is a capitalist society - one gets what one pays (not really but that's the model or more appropriately, the haves get what they want off those who have less.  

Lesson 1: don't do this.  Lesson 2: if you want to be charitable, be charitable.  The hybrid of this nature:: nope.

Here's the NPR article and thanks to NPR for following-up.

 

What Happened When Panera Launched A 'Pay What You Can' Experiment

LISTEN·3:333:33QUEUE

• DOWNLOAD
• EMBED
• TRANSCRIPT

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Flipboard
• Email

January 24, 20194:24 PM ET

Heard on All Things Considered

 

SARAH GONZALEZ

Twitter

In 2010, Panera launched an experiment at a few of their cafes. They told customers: Pay what you can afford. NPR's Planet Money looks at how that experiment turned out.

AUDIE CORNISH, HOST:

In 2010, Panera started opening nonprofit cafes called Panera Cares. They told customers, pay what you can afford. Sarah Gonzalez with our Planet Money podcast looks at how that experiment turned out.

SARAH GONZALEZ, BYLINE: The last Panera Cares cafe looks pretty much like any Panera with a few little differences, like there's this wall of day-old bread when you walk in.

BARRY COMBS: This bread wall's for anybody else that's in need. We have a bin here, and you can add what you can. Grab a loaf of bread. Bring it to the cashiers, and we slice it for you.

GONZALEZ: Barry Combs is the manager of the Boston cafe.

COMBS: Everything is suggested amounts.

GONZALEZ: Here, you pay whatever you want. Instead of cash registers, there are clear donation bins.

Plexiglas, plastic.

And all the prices on the menu are just suggested prices.

OK, I'm going to do the broccoli cheddar soup.

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: It's up to you to just place your value in the bin, however much you wish to donate.

GONZALEZ: I got a 20, so I'll do that.

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Thanks so much. We really appreciate that.

GONZALEZ: The former CEO of Panera Ron Shaich started opening pay-what-you-want cafes hoping that enough wealthier customers would pay more than the suggested price so the needy could eat for less.

RON SHAICH: I fundamentally believed that there were enough good people in the world, that they would do the right thing.

GIANA ECKHARDT: My first impression of the idea was, this will never work.

GONZALEZ: Giana Eckhardt is a professor of marketing at Royal Holloway, University of London who was very skeptical of this experiment. She studies consumer behavior and says it went against everything she knew about how consumers behave. She says how people feel about a social issue like hunger doesn't really affect individual purchases made at a checkout counter. It depends more, she says, on things like how much cash you happen to have in your pocket when you walk in. Eckhardt observed the cafes for years. They ended up attracting a lot of homeless people.

ECKHARDT: And so you would see all of these shopping carts around, which also smelled in addition to the people themselves. And so the managers had to come up with rules about the size of bags that you could bring in.

GONZALEZ: Pretty early on, Cares cafes started telling customers that if they didn't have enough money to pay, they could volunteer for an hour in exchange for a meal, clean under the counters. But in the end, they were not attracting enough generous customers for Panera to break even.

ECKHARDT: What ended up happening is the people who were not food insecure did not want to eat lunch with people who were food insecure.

GONZALEZ: Almost nine years into the experiment, every Panera Cares cafe closed except for the one in Boston. But Ron Shaich still considers the experiment a success.

SHAICH: You've served millions of people over many, many years.

GONZALEZ: The one remaining pay-what-you-want Cares cafe is still losing money. The manager says they cover about 85 percent of their cost. Panera makes up the rest. But Eckhardt says there are more successful pay-what-you-want models, like the ones that make people feel like they're getting a gift.

ECKHARDT: So you think, oh, I've received a gift from someone that I don't even know, and this I-should-repay-that-gift is a very strong instinct inside people, I think.

GONZALEZ: Another thing that would work better - no prices. If you see even a suggested price, Eckhardt says that's the amount you think you should pay. With no price, people actually give more. Sarah Gonzalez, NPR News.

Copyright © 2019 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Nonprofit Board Annual Checklist #NonprofitBoards

As you all know, the calendar year has turned to 2019.  For practical purposes this turning provides an opportunity to many boards to review their progress as a governing body.  The folks at the Standards for Excellence Institute, a credentialing body that helps nonprofits say to the public they are doing things well, includes board management as one of its focuses.  While I will quibble over whether the Standards are appropriately designated as "best practices" (promising maybe or common sense but not singularly documented as having a specific impact therefore less likely "best" practices) the Standards do provide guidance and can help frame the conversations about steps a nonprofit board can take to be effective or efficient (more likely, the latter).  With that said, here's four activities the Institute recommends for the beginning of the year.

1. Review your bylaws:

• Do the bylaws describe standing committees or positions that no longer exist?
• Do they address modes of communication that you rarely employ? 
• Have you moved away from some of the statements in the bylaws in a way that encourages you to re-think the clauses in the bylaws or does the organization need to resume past practices to avoid “mission creep”?

2. Review the position description for board members and officers:

• Do the roles and responsibilities adequately describe what is really needed for an individual to succeed in helping to advance your organization’s mission?
• Are the roles and responsibilities consistent (or in opposition to) the clauses of your organization’s governing documents, such as your bylaws?
• Do you find that your list of expectations for board members is helpful in the board recruitment, selection, and orientation process? Hopefully, this document is shared with board members BEFORE they accept a nomination to serve on the board.  There is nothing worse than investing a lot of time recruiting a board member only to find out that he/she is unable or unwilling to carry out the expected responsibilities.

3. Take care in completing your annual conflict of interest statements.

• Each nonprofit organization should have a board-approved conflict of interest statement that, as the Standards for Excellence code states, “is applicable to board members and staff, as well as volunteers who have significant, independent decision-making authority regarding the resources of the organization.”
• The annual conflict of interest policy should “identify the types of conduct or transactions that raise conflict of interest concerns, should set forth procedures for disclosure of actual or potential conflicts and should provide for review of individuals transactions by uninvolved members of the board of directors.” (Standards for Excellence code)

4. Review the performance of your current board members and board as a whole.

• Don’t wait until the board presents its slate of new members to assess the strengths and weaknesses of your current board. Undertaking an assessment now can help your nonprofit know what talent and experience should be targeted in your next round of board member recruitment.
• Are your current board members fulfilling their responsibilities (fiduciary, fundraising, governance, attendance, etc.)?  NOTE by Mike: fundraising MAY be a responsibility IF/WHEN agreed to by the whole board and individuals.  Also note the use of both fiduciary and governance responsibilities - I'm going to leap to suggest that the governance responsibilities has principally to do with paying attention to board management and well being over fiduciary which has principally to do with nonprofit oversight.
• Do your current board members complete an annual or bi-annual self-assessment of their service as a board member and the board’s service as a whole? 2019 would be a great year to start this practice.

All reasonable activities that again, could have a positive impact on board efficiency and possibly, effectiveness.

Nonprofit Board Fiduciary Duties Defined #NonprofitBoards

From Positively Naperville, here's a good, simple and accurate (I believe) description of a nonprofit board's fiduciary duties, useful for all kinds of purposes including Onboarding.  Imagine also putting this set, along with the org. mission, on the "other" side of each member's name tent (you know, that identity card placed in front of each board member at board meetings (to ensure all know everyone's name)?

Duty of Care – exercising their best judgement while actively participating in decision-making on behalf of the organization.

Duty of Loyalty – putting the interests of the organization before their personal and professional interests when making decisions on behalf of the organization.

Duty of Obedience – ensuring the organization complies with the applicable federal, state, and local laws and adheres to its mission.

Nonprofit Conflict #Nonprofit

What to do when, within a nonprofit, disharmony causes a schism?  

People of faith have faced this challenge on multiple occasions beginning perhaps with one of the most famous schisms: the Reformation (you know, when Martin Luther (no, not MLK) tacked his 95 issues on the front door of an area Roman Catholic Church.  A true and ordained insider, Martin Luther just did not agree with the theological and applied beliefs promoted by what was then the main Christian Church of the times (1500s).  And there have been many, many splits in all kinds of institutions likely before Luther and certainly, after.  Splitting because of a a disagreement with values, or practices or just not liking the current leadership appears to be the nature of organizations.  And yes, splitting means some followers (and their money) goes one way while others go another way.

This brings us to the dilemma now experienced by the Women's March.  Clearly a massive movement with a clear understanding of what deserves a "march" the organizers have experienced an breakdown in communication or misunderstanding that appears at this moment to be unresolved.  And, while the issues that stand in the way are real, what is really standing in the way to me is a leadership that instead of finding a resolution (so as not to reduce the following and the subsequent resources) has resulted in more than one march within the same communities.  

While one might hope that those with a common cause and mission might not be distracted by inner struggles, I suppose the nature of humankind proves otherwise.  I would have hoped otherwise but history says it's just not possible.  

New Resource on Nonprofit Leadership #NonprofitLeadership

There can't be enough resources to guide the many of us involved in nonprofit leadership (paid and voluntary).  So, it is with great delight I write to introduce Inspired Nonprofit Leadership.  Facilitated by Mary Highland, a respected governance researcher and consultant, Inspired Nonprofit Leadership takes listeners (it's a podcast) inside the heads of nonprofit management and governance thought leaders.  You get these experts' wisdom and experience about nonprofit management and governance theory and practice.  Try it out.  You will not be disappointed.