Board Chairs and Board Leaders Mary Hiland, nonprofit leadership expert, interviews Mike Burns to discuss national research on board chairs and board leadership.
Inspired Nonprofit Leadership Mary Hiland, nonprofit leadership expert, interviews Mike Burns to explore nonprofit board stages of development. Mike offers that recognition of board stages helps establish achievable expectations.
"Effectively Raising Capital: The Board Chair & Executive Director Relationship" Mike Burns and Kevin McQueen, partners at BWB Solutions, and special guest Carla Weil, the Chief Strategy Officer from Capital for Change, the largest full-service CDFI in Connecticut, share their experiences effectively identifying funding sources and raising capital to strengthen an organization and provide more impact in low-income communities. Carla Mannings of Partners for the Common Good and CapNexus moderated the panel.
Share power to strengthen your board. Are your board leaders struggling to balance power among themselves? Are they not understanding their roles outside of the boardroom? If you answered yes to any of these, listen to Ep. 58 of our podcast as we host Mike Burns and Judy Freiwirth. Mike and Judy share their expertise, which is based on their Nonprofit Alliance study Voices of Board Chairs.
Making a Lasting Difference I've been struggling to finish "Making a Lasting Difference" by Graeme Reekie since first I received this book about 6 months ago from Wren and Greyhound. The press is British but I thought the subject would be universal for nonprofits.
Alas and sadly, this is a slow, tedious read filled with platitudes and almost helpful considerations nonprofit managers might want to consider when thinking about how to financially sustain their organizations.
I have generally posited that a nonprofit has 4 "pillars" that comprise its DNA: program, management and operations, governance and sustainability. M. Graeme offers five: involvement ((having community support); Income generation; Innovation ("how to nourish and encourage incremental innovation); Improvement (systems and structures); and impact measurement. So he and I don't operate from the same lens but his is certainly one perspective.
Making a Lasting Difference is constructed in four parts, 20 chapters and 211 pages. The possibly most innovative content is in Part 2, Chapter 2 where paradoxes, principles and practices of sustainability are presented. The paradoxes:
a. Change - only by changing can organizations be sustainability, sustainability does not mean sustained, and, the lesson is that an org. must learn, adapt and evolve purposefully. Here the author poses that an org has to have its act together to achieve sustainability
b. Octopus - organizations need to reach out in new directions to grow but growing in too many directions pulls them out of shape; diversified income does not mean reduced risk; and, an org must focus on core organisational purpose and structure. Here the author says that mission drift will not make you sustainable.
c. Yes/No the things that an organisation needs to survive can also kill it. Saying yes to everything is fatal; sustainability is about more than just money. Capacity and quality matter. Understand when, how and what to say no to. I would offer this is the "stay in your lane" paradox.
d. Efficiency - Efficiency preserves resources but can impair development. Organisations cannot evolve, adapt or respond without spare capacity. And orgs should balance strategy and scrutiny. They should invest in capacity building.
To all of this I just want to say: uh, ok and thanks for the amazing insight. No, not really! I would not invest in this book. You can better spend your time reading the Federal Register looking for grant opportunities (good luck given the current environment) or going through the Foundation Center directory or building an endowment from rich people who loved you (yes, this really is the key to sustainability). Making a lasting difference may be a good idea when thinking about long-term impact from what your nonprofit does - reading this book will not.
While I generally don't cover the high-end art world unless the board screws up in some way, today I am choosing to give a nod to the Denver Art Museum board and in particular, the board chair who made the public statement about the completion of an expansion project and the opening. Here it is as reported by BoardSource Newsletter:
Work is winding up on a $150 million construction project at the Denver Art Museum, and an opening is scheduled for October. "This campus transformation ensures that the Denver Art Museum continues to serve as a beacon of creativity for the widest possible audience for decades to come," said Board Chairman Lanny Martin.
Work is winding up on a $150 million construction project at the Denver Art Museum, and an opening is scheduled for October. "This campus transformation ensures that the Denver Art Museum continues to serve as a beacon of creativity for the widest possible audience for decades to come," said Board Chairman Lanny Martin.
What's the big deal you ask? I fundamentally believe that, as a nonprofit's "surrogate" owner, it is the board that should be the public face of a nonprofit while noting that there may be reasonable exceptions. But those exceptions should be rare and thankfully, the Denver Art Museum is practicing this project likely with recognition that the Museum board played a significant part in raising the needed funds.
So, a big shout-out to Lanny Martin, board chair, the board, and the staff for supporting the board!
I think the following summary and the rest of the article from BetterBoards kind-of goes without saying but if that were the case, we wouldn't need to say it. Please read.
According to BetterBoards (austrailian "BoardSource" Both the Board and the CEO have a duty to act in the best interests of the organisation as a whole. Therefore, the separate roles and distinct responsibilities of the CEO/Board relationship should exist in an environment of teamwork, communication and mutual respect. A healthy and efficient relationship is essential for successfully achieving organisational goals. In particular, a strong, productive relationship between the CEO and the Chair of the Board will support improved corporate performance. Consideration should be given to the obligations which both parties owe to each other, in order to successfully reach a common organisational outcome. A productive CEO/Board relationship is one of negotiation, and a successful negotiator knows not to enter without considering the other party’s needs and perceptions, as well as their own.
If you prefer advice that pretty much echoes what is said by those who have their own preferences and go with the common literature then follow the "18-point guide" included in yesterday's Tallahassee Democrat. Yes, these will get you by but if you want to do more than "get by" consider your organization's stage of development, focus, experience as a board and by-laws, history etc. Yup, you heard me: there are governance practices as a consultant that I like because I have seen them work but they don't work for every nonprofit because there are qualities like stage of development and size that change what not-evidence based and rote advice offers (and yes, there is very, very little evidence-based or "best" practices).
So read on - I have inserted my own thoughts and will from the get-go say, "I'm not a fan".
Follow this 18-point guide to keep board running efficiently | Notes on Nonprofits
It is always a pleasure to share words of wisdom from my friend and colleague Bob Harris, CAE who is an expert on nonprofit governance. Bob works with boards of state and national associations, charitable nonprofits, and chambers of commerce throughout the U.S. and shares 18 ways to improve governance efficiencies.
When meeting with boards I ask how the governance routines came about. The common answer, “We’ve always done it this way.” For example:
Why does the board meet every month?
Who designed the agenda with more than a dozen reports and updates?
How did the board grow to be 28 directors and officers?
Try these practices to improve board governance:
Right Size Board – The average size board is 15. The IRS suggests the number of directors be a size to facilitate meaningful conversation. The larger the board the more disengaged directors, some thinking, “They won’t notice if I don’t show up.” (Larger boards have value, especially for input and fundraising.) - There is some research on what happens with odd and even boards. I believe large or small, management of the board is key as is a strong chair. Size is not the issue - management, a strong governance committee and good facilitator are.
Agenda Design – Together the executive director and board chair craft an agenda to advance the mission and goals. Reconsider placing “new business” at the end of the agenda when directors are eager to depart. Question the practice of slotting general reports and updates that usurp valuable board time. Why should the rest of the board be left out of developing the agenda?
Consent Agenda – If most of the meeting is used to reading and listening to reports, like “show and tell,” that can be changed using a consent agenda. Distribute the reports with no calls-for-action in advance of the meeting. Upon convening, a director will make a motion to “accept the reports as presented.” It is a fiduciary duty for directors to come prepared. Yes, for the most part. But a director has the right and responsibility to pull an item from a report for discussion.
Orientation – Without orientation, new directors sit back, “I won’t say anything for six months until I understand the governance processes.” Provide an annual orientation of the board, positioning it as “refresh and blend.” Refreshing the seasoned volunteers and blending in new directors. Provide access to all the governing documents. Agreed
Role Distinctions – Role confusion leads to chaos. The board governs and the staff manage. Stay in your lane. Committees supplement the work of the board, receiving authority from the bylaws and assignments from the chief elected officer. This partially depends on the stage of a development and number of staff like when there isn't any. Basically, board members can play two roles - governance and volunteer but when they volunteer it is staff who is their boss.
Conflicts of Interest – Identify potential conflicts of directors at least annually (as queried by the IRS.) Add a footnote to agendas to remind the board chair to start the meeting by asking, “Does anybody have a conflict of interest with anything on today’s agenda?” Yes
Strategic Plan –The plan belongs to the board; they should continuously monitor and discuss progress. Keep it on the board table, frequently asking, “How does this motion advance our strategic plan?” Yes and consider generative discussions at each meeting to flush out what's going on externally to understand impact.
Meeting Minutes – Minutes are not a newsletter for members. They are a document to protect board and organization, showing they did their fiduciary duties. Brief is usually better. Discard recordings and notes upon approval of the minutes. For sure brief- actions taken and maybe an explanation.
Attendance – When a duly called meeting is convened, directors are expected to attend. Some organizations offer up to two excused absences according to bylaws. Enforcement of the bylaws or policy is critical to maintain a dedicated leadership team and presence of a quorum. Yes
Protections – Directors are expected to provide good governance. Most boards are protected through D & O liability insurance, indemnification, corporate veil, and volunteer immunity. Upon renewal, circulate a copy of the cover page of the D & O policy so the directors understand the coverage and risk management. Um, ok.
Apparent Authority – Be sure the board understands that directors and committees do not have authority to speak or contract for the organization unless specifically designated. A board member posting to social media is frequently assumed to be speaking with the authority for the organization when that’s not true. Hm.
Committee Alignment – Committees engage members and supplement board and staff efforts. Align them with the goals in the strategic plan to be sure every goal has a volunteer workforce advancing initiatives. Sure but committees do the homework for the board of policy, planning and evaluation not just oversight of initiatives.
Committee Minutes – IRS Form 990 questions if committees with authority keep minutes. Provide a template to make minute taking easy for any volunteer, including start and end times, indication of a quorum, and the recommendations to the board. Um ok although I don't understand the emphases.
Sign-In Sheet – Instead of a blank piece of paper, provide a formatted sign-in sheet. Include the organization’s mission, advisory on conflicts, confidentiality and antitrust, and a place for signatures. Um, ok?
Guests – Guests attending board meetings may influence discussions and outcomes. Set protocols for guest attendance, if at all, by indicating they must be recognized before speaking, respect confidentiality, and sit apart from the board. Set aside a time for reports if guests are attending only to present information. Makes sense although I'm not sure of the emphases.
Bob Harris, CAE, provides free governance tips and templates at www.nonprofitcenter.com. Notes on Nonprofits is produced by Kelly Otte, MPA, and Alyce Lee Stansbury, CFR.
"Founder, owner and CEO of a Cincinnati nonprofit......" Huh, owner? That''s just plain wrong. There is only onw "surrogate" owner of a nonprofit and that is the Board of Directors. And to top it off, this was a bad irresponsible "owner" who did not pay payroll taxes for his employees. Bad, bad, bad. And as you would come to expect this question: where was the board?? Obviously not doing their fiduciary duty in paying attention that the taxes, paid by the CEO on their behalf mind you! This situation is just so wrong and not just about the CEO but the Board. Both have failed grossly and then of course there's the employees - what happens to them? Boards, don't let this happen to you. Ask questions. At least make sure there's an audit which should be the place this hanky panky is found out.
The founder, owner and CEO of a Cincinnati nonprofit who prosecutors said enriched himself at the expense of the IRS has pleaded guilty to federal charges.
Court documents say Barry Rene Isaacs’ failure to pay certain taxes cost the government about $360,000.
Isaacs pleaded guilty Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Cincinnati to an employment tax violation charge and identity theft, records show.
Isaacs’ nonprofit, Hope 4 Change, provided housing and care for adults with developmental disabilities, drug addiction problems and mental disorders, officials said.
According to prosecutors, Isaacs withheld taxes from employees’ paychecks – between 120 and 180 of them – but did not pay that money to the IRS.
Between 2013 and 2014, according to prosecutors, Hope 4 Change received $3.1 million from the Ohio Department of Development Disabilities to provide services to its clients.
“The defendant committed financial crimes involving fraud or deceit designed to enrich himself at the expense of the IRS and others,” prosecutors said in documents arguing that he should not be released on bond. “He used the identity of other persons to evade responsibility for and obstruct the investigation.”
Officials said Isaacs spent thousands of dollars on clothing, massages, beauty care, travel and personal vehicles for him and his family.
Isaacs’ ex-wife, Teela Gilbert, also was charged in connection with the case with obstruction of justice. Gilbert was the nonprofit's vice president, “student affairs” director and office manager, officials said. When Isaacs was arrested in January 2020, he was with Gilbert in Houston, Texas, documents say, registered at a hotel under a fake name.
An Ohio address Isaacs provided to investigators was found “to be abandoned,” documents say.
Isaacs will continue to be held in custody until he is sentenced, court records say. A sentencing date has not been set.
California and a few other states are now sitting on a bundle of cash generated from the sales now legal marijuana. Lots of nonprofits are lining up to receive the money. But what kind of conversation should boards have about this new source of monies? A lot of conversation - one that is guided by a discussion about values and facts and their consumers and their mission.
The Chronicle of Philanthropy offered the following review of the situation noting that some nonprofits are thinking hard about this dilemna - one that is akin to that which built places of worship all across the US - built mind you from both those who did an honest day of work and those who didn't. Yes, nonprofit boards need to have this conversation and as I have always urged, there should be a discussion that leads to a policy that describes what is tainted and what is not and when to take and when to night. Is it really possible that some tainted money is ok to take?
Fathers and Families of San Joaquin, a small nonprofit that serves young people and people who have been through the criminal-justice system, got a big influx of money in 2019. The $1 million grant came from a surprising source — California’s marijuana sales.
The group, whose revenue was about $2 million a year before receiving the grant, trains formerly incarcerated people as substance-abuse counselors. Former inmates conduct workshops and training for young people in youth correctional facilities. The group has rapid-response teams for domestic abuse and child abuse and has partnered with a Native American substance-abuse program for healing ceremonies.
So many of the problems the organization tackles in and around Stockton, Calif., can be traced to the war on drugs, says Samuel Nuñez, the group’s executive director. He remembers police officers knocking down his front door when he was a child — something he says was common in his neighborhood — and his mother sitting terrified on the floor. Nuñez was in and out of juvenile facilities, nearly died at 18 from a shotgun blast, and served time in prison for retaliating. Then he changed his life.
“They were fiercely policing our communities, they were traumatizing us,” Nuñez says. Young men grew up without fathers because they were behind bars.
LEONEL MUNGUIA
Fathers & Families of San Joaquin partnered with another organization to put on a healing festival to help address intergenerational trauma.
Over the past two years, California has tried to reverse some of the damage. The state is using some of the fees it collects from the sale of recreational marijuana to give grants to community groups like Fathers and Families that serve people and communities harmed by the war on drugs. So far, the state has awarded nearly $100 million, a figure expected to jump to $175 million in May.
California is not alone. Alaska and Illinois have similar programs, and as more states legalize the drug, additional programs could be on the way. In the 2020 election, voters in Arizona, Montana, New Jersey, and South Dakota approved measures to legalize the recreational use of marijuana. At the end of March, the New York state legislature passed a marijuana legalization bill that will set aside 40 percent of tax revenue for grants to community groups and local governments to help communities disproportionately affected by harsh drug policies.
overnor’s Office of Business and Economic Development and the Department of Health Care Services, both of which would receive the funds. He also brought together racial-justice and policy groups and put together recommendations on how best to use the funds to address fallout from the war on drugs. One goal was to make sure that funds went to small community-based groups run by people of color that often serve or employ people who have been incarcerated or have otherwise been affected by drug policies.
Ethical Concerns
Alaska is also making grants to nonprofits from revenue set aside from recreational marijuana sales. Although the state decriminalized marijuana in the 1970s, a 2014 ballot initiative set up a marketplace for legal sales.
Commercialization sparked concern about potential increased use of the drug by young people, says Thomas Azzarella, director of the Alaska Afterschool Network, which advocates for and supports youth programs. The state allocated 12.5 percent of its revenue from marijuana sales to fund after-school prevention programs. Azzarella says that young people who are in such programs are 2.5 times less likely than their peers to use marijuana
Azzarella’s group is distributing the state funds and providing technical assistance to grantees. It recently awarded its first round of grants — $1.25 million to seven organizations, both large established groups like the Boys & Girls Clubs and small community groups. Unfortunately, the need still outstrips the available funding: It received requests for about $2.5 million.
Illinois legalized recreational marijuana sales in January 2020. About a quarter of the state’s revenue from cannabis goes to organizations that work on civil legal aid, re-entry from prison, violence prevention, economic development, and business development in communities that were hurt by past drug policies. The program is overseen by a board made up of elected officials, community members, and people who have been through the criminal-justice system. So far, it has made 80 grants totaling $31 million.
Not all grant makers and nonprofits embrace money tied to marijuana. Using funds generated by the sale of marijuana means programs designed to stop people from using marijuana end up relying on drug use for support.
It’s something Azzarella has thought about a lot. He knows he is not going to stop legalization. For him, it’s a question of how to work within the system to do the most good. “We are not for or against the industry. We recognize if legalization occurs, we need to be focused on prevention,” he says. “With the new industry comes additional risks and hazards. And this is our way to ensure that the industry is a good partner.”
Keddy says few people in philanthropy recognized the opportunity in the cannabis revenue funds — and were willing to support his effort to get that money to nonprofits.
“A lot of philanthropy, you talk to them about engaging on cannabis policy and it’s just like it’s icky to them,” he says. “They don’t want to be around it.” While younger foundation executives are more open to the business, he says the older ones just don’t want to get involved.
At the California Endowment, which did support his efforts, there was some initial concern that getting involved with marijuana revenue funds would mean condoning the use of the drug, Madura says. But comparing the idea to the state’s use of cigarette taxes to fund children’s programs was helpful. People are going to use marijuana, just like they are going to use cigarettes, she says. The question then becomes how to use that money to help people before they use the substance rather than addressing health concerns after the fact. It also presented an opportunity to repair some of the harms caused by the criminalization of the drug.
“There are these dollars coming in. They belong to the people of California,” she says. “How can they be invested in the most disproportionately impacted communities in California?”
New Attention
Nuñez with Fathers and Families of San Joaquin says the money his group received is small recompense for the violence and trauma visited upon his community. But the recognition the grant brought has opened doors for his group.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Proposition 64 funds definitely elevated our profile and actually gave us the opportunity to prove our model,” he says. He says the organization’s programs have led to some of the lowest recidivism rates in the state. For a long time, Nuñez struggled as a former convict to raise money and get policy makers to take notice.
Now city officials are interested in understanding more about his work. He says the grant was critical in drawing attention to his methods, and the results speak for themselves. “We’re so proud.”
Nonprofit governance is not an easy job. Nonprofit board chair work is even more difficult. Based on my experience and as part of a team, research about nonprofit board chairs, few have been trained for the job. So it is not surprising that there is a disparate level of success or triumphs. The following opinion piece published in the Fort Meyers News-Press talks poses that chairs who individually take on the task of providing oversight of the CEO have effectively failed in fulfilling a duty that is the board's as a whole, not the chair's. Advice that I even more appreciate is that chairs do best when they forge relationships with the members and move the group as a whole to fulfill their duties. I would offer that it's noteworthy that the local press even too-up this topic. There are a lot of folks serving on boards.
Commentary: The board is the boss, not board members
Nonprofit leaders are upset and facing the same problem. All of them want to know what to do to heal a toxic board culture, which can include board bullies who are disrespectful to staff and other board members, and who push their own agendas.
What are the consequences of board bullies?
- Good staff members become poor performers.
- Good staff leaders leave jobs they love.
- Good board members quit to escape the drama.
- Board members try to do staff jobs instead of being ambassadors.
- Board members focused on power and not the purpose of the organization.
There is even a problem with over-bearing, micromanaging board chairs who think they manage the CEO, and make decisions without input from the full board of directors. When board chair tries to manage the CEO, there are too many things that can wrong. For example, it is hard to get strong board member engagement when important issues come to the board already decided. Or even worse, when the board is kept in the dark on important issues – only to unearth them at a later date.
There would be much stronger nonprofit boards if the board chair spent more time mentoring and engaging the other board members than focusing on the relationship with the CEO. And vice versa - rather than expending so much energy on the board chair, a CEO’s time would be better spent building relationships with and enabling other board members. It is not the job of the board chair to mentor the CEO. It is a much better practice to see the CEO assemble their own advisory team or find an experienced colleague to serve as the mentor than to invest that responsibility with the board chair.
Alex McGill Johnson, the CEO of Planned Parenthood was published on Saturday in the New York Times Opinion section. Ms. Johnson explained the dilemma that has faced Planned Parenthood since it's founder, Margaret Sanger, was no longer part of the organization. Margaret Sanger, like all of us, was a seriously flawed person whose flaws were part of her platform in the creation of Planned Parenthood. In her letter, Ms. Johnson reviewed these flaws and which she acknowledged but for which she gave no apology but rather an affirmation that Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood had evolved and has come to understand where it should be in what it does. Good enough perhaps. This is certainly more forward thinking than many of the "haters" have come around so many issues in America.
But, what I think might be equally worth consideration is the "who" that has reviewed this history and is making a commitment to move forward with a different lens than that which began what is one form of a movement. By "who" I leave Ms. Johnson's NY Times letter noting that there is no indicator as to what is the thought and perspective of the "owners" of Planned Parenthood. Have they endorsed Ms. Johnson's position? Have they an opinion? Why is this letter not signed by them?
After reviewing Ms. Johnson's letter I have a similar question about Margaret Sanger. I know she did not act alone. She too had backers and some sort of governance. And yet all the vitriol associated with Margaret Sanger appears hers, and hers alone to own. but there were others - many others - and they are not perhaps even known never mind acknowledged.
A nonprofit is not the property of the CEO. The CEO is recruited by a board to execute that board's Theory of Change and agreed upon mission. It is the owners who must come, I believe, to the forefront to explain and possibly defend, not the CEO. The "sins" of the many must be owned by the many.
Back multiple years ago I remember a commercial, I believe maybe the American Cancer Society, that was in cartoon format and ended with a voiceover that stated: "Do you know why we talk to you this way? Because when we talk to you as adults, you don't listen"
This could well be the response by the constituents, stakeholders you could say, at the Ingersoll Gender Center in Seattle. Current and former staff and members of the organization's community have petitioned the board calling for a radical change of policies and practices they refer to as "anti-blackness". The board has responded partially as requested giving two paid weeks off to conduct an investigation. The board has also been called upon to resign to ensure a new cohort of leaders will to implement findings.
There are a number of lessons here. First, a nonprofit board should not underestimate the authority and power of the community it serves. Failing to listen can result in action such as that being demonstrated here. Next, a board should be committed to translating findings into action toward positive change. And finally, a board needs to understand it is disposable. If it fails to do its duty which includes being responsible to its constituency, new members must replace them.
Here's the South Seattle Emerald article describing the scene and what has led up to and continues this series of events.
Ingersoll Gender Center is one of the oldest organizations by and for transgender, nonbinary, and gender nonconforming communities in the U.S. Founded in 1977, Ingersoll provides support groups, resources, help with navigating healthcare, employment, and other services, all under the vision of self-determination and collective liberation for transgender people. However, current and former staff members claim the nonprofit has fallen far short of this vision, alleging Ingersoll Directors have demonstrated “intentional, calculated abuse, and anti-Blackness.”
On March 15, about 12 Black, POC, trans, and disabled current and former staff — known as Ingersoll Collective Action — released an Action Network petition, calling out the nonprofit for abusive workplace dynamics, exploiting the labor and social capital of Black staff, and other instances of harm.
The petition includes accounts of verbal abuse, sexually harassing comments, intimidation, attempts to co-opt the work of Black staff, and other examples going back more than two years. The petition demands the immediate resignations of Executive Director Karter Booher, Program Director Jonathan Lee Williams, and Operations Director Louis Mitchell. Demands also include a public apology for nonaction when past concerns were raised and for outside investigators and racial equity consultants to be hired to review the organization. Over 1,100 signatures have been gathered by the time of this article, including support from groups like Queer The Land, Trans Women of Color Solidarity Network, Pride Foundation, Alphabet Alliance of Color, and The Gender Justice League.
Ingersoll’s board of directors addressed the petition in a brief public statement, reporting the organization had authorized a “complete professional investigation into all matters.” Ingersoll Collective Action responded with questions about the investigation and demanded transparency in the process. The board answered with information about the independent investigator, Onik’a Gilliam-Cathcart of the Seattle law firm Helsell Fetterman, and an apology that the investigation didn’t happen sooner. Ingersoll Collective Action responded by expressing feeling let down by the board’s statements and their lack of addressing the petition’s main demands.
On March 26, the board met with non-director staff to announce all staff and contractors would receive two weeks of paid time off starting April 3. The board said Gilliam-Cathcart would be reaching out to staff during that time for the investigation. For a timeline of events, statements from 10 current and former Ingersoll staff, and a link to the petition, see the Ingersoll Collective Action website.
South Seattle Emerald reached out to Ingersoll, as well as founder and Board Co-Chair Marsha Botzer for comment. Botzer replied with a copy of the board’s first public statement and has not responded to an additional request for comment.
Evelyn Chow, Ingersoll’s economic justice manager and part of Ingersoll Collective Action, said, “People in the BIPOC queer and trans communities in Seattle have already known and heard about a lot of the shit that’s happening at Ingersoll. It’s been a well known fact in communities for months, if not years now.”
In one of the statements from Ingersoll’s former community engagement manager Al Littlejohn, they said they were “regularly harassed and abused at the hands of, primarily, the program director … I could get cussed at for literally just making a suggestion.”
Littlejohn said they developed a drinking problem in order to cope with the job and eventually decided to resign last summer. Both the program director and operations director are Black. “You can be Black and still be anti-Black at the same time — some folks apparently haven’t gotten the message,” Littlejohn wrote in their statement.
Chow noted the common occurrence of how mainly white-run nonprofits employ BIPOC staff members, but lacking the self-awareness, desire, or action to unlearn white supremacy, these nonprofits essentially set BIPOC staff up for failure, feeling burned out, unsupported, and exploited in a cycle of diversity without inclusion.
Chow said Ingersoll has been historically dismissive of grievances or reluctant or slow to address them. They said there is documentation of grievances brought against the board from the past few years, which they’ve “continuously tried to sweep under the rug or steamroll over, pretending like [these] things aren’t really happening. This is a pattern for Ingersoll’s board and leadership at this point.” It was only “very recently” that Ingersoll hired ChrisTiana ObeySumner of Epiphanies of Equity for a racial equity consultation in response to demands made last summer.
Mattie Mooney, a Black trans community organizer and healthcare advocate, worked at Ingersoll for about three years. Mooney put in their two weeks’ notice of resignation at Ingersoll in March, around the same time they say Booher was attempting to co-opt their work on SB 5313, a health care act that would require insurers to cover gender-affirming procedures often dismissed and denied as “cosmetic.” Mooney said when they brought up the issue with Booher, their remaining two weeks at Ingersoll were cut short, and they were denied access to their work email and Slack accounts.
This instance, combined with unaddressed grievances of the past and the fact some individuals’ contracts would end at the end of March, made the moment right for action. “We knew we had the people power in this moment and wanted to act before things got swept under the rug and put off yet again,” Chow said.
What’s happening at Ingersoll mirrors demands from BIPOC staff to address systemic racism at other Seattle institutions and nonprofits like Seattle Children’s Hospital and the Hugo House. “We’ve been seeing BIPOC workers at nonprofits across the board in Seattle … rising up and refusing to endure these racist work environments any longer,” Chow observed. “[But] the unfortunate reality is that we are still part of this nonprofit industrial complex, and the nonprofit industrial complex was literally created to placate radical change.”
Chow recognizes the important role Ingersoll plays in providing direct support and resources to transgender and gender diverse people, but believes service and advocacy is dependent on trust between the organization and the communities they serve. Meeting the demands of the petition would be a start to make it right.
“I think that with momentum and proper coordination, organizing, and mobilizing, we really can see the change that we want. It’s going to be a slow and very messy process, I’m sure,” Chow said. “While I hope that justice can come for this specific situation at this specific organization, my vision for trans liberation and queer and trans justice is a world in which nonprofits don’t need to exist in general.”
Ingersoll Collective Action is planning to host a roundtable discussion with community members and supporting organizations to share information and talk about upcoming actions. Stay up-to-date with the collective through their website.
Update: Ingersoll announced on 4/16 that Executive Director Karter Booher and Operations Director Louis Mitchell have submitted their resignations for personal reasons. Their last effective date with the organization will be June 1.
Mark Van Streefkerk is a South Seattle-based journalist and freelance writer living in the Beacon Hill neighborhood. He often writes about specialty coffee, LGBTQ+ topics, and more. Visit his website atmarkvanstreefkerk.com and follow him on Instagram at @markthewriter.
You are a board member and chair of the board and you just don't know how much and for what money is being spent by the administration of your nonprofit?
Well that's the story that in the eyes of the former board chair is the situation over at the Hershey School - the richest boarding school in America. The former board chair claims the administration won't let him and presumably the whole board financial records. So, the former chair and alumna are suing.
I do wonder why members just don't go to the 990 but that likely doesn't tell all the story nor why they don't fire the executives and get new staff who are transparent but there you have it.
Thank you to ProPublica for maintaining its integrity (like forever) and digging into stories that are often lessons for many.
by Bob Fernandez, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and Charlotte Keith, Spotlight PACo-published with The Philadelphia Inquirer and Spotlight PA
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
For over a year, lawyer Bob Heist, then-chairman of the Milton Hershey School’s board, says he sought internal financial records detailing the spending history of the $17 billion charity, which has a mission to educate low-income students for free.
He now says he is being denied records he needs as a board member charged with overseeing the Pennsylvania boarding school’s operations, and earlier this month he sued the school to obtain the documents. It’s an extremely unusual step for a sitting board member, taken against an extremely unusual institution: The Milton Hershey School is the wealthiest pre-college educational institution in the United States. It controls 80% of the Hershey Co. candy giant’s voting shares, and reaps profits from the sale of Hershey chocolate bars, Reese’s peanut butter cups and SkinnyPop-brand snacks sold in thousand of U.S. retail stores.
The dispute is the latest in a series of legal entanglements involving the nonprofit Milton Hershey School and the members of its governing board. Two previous financial controversies raised questions about whether the school’s spending was serving the needs of its roughly 2,100 students, as required by law and enforced by the state attorney general’s office.
The suit also raises anew questions about board oversight of the vast Milton Hershey fortune, donated by the candy company’s founder to help poor and at-risk children. For months, The Inquirer, Spotlight PA and ProPublica have investigated this and other issues, including whether school leaders and board members have fulfilled that mission to a degree commensurate with the charity’s vast resources. The publications will share their findings in upcoming stories.
For years, critics have argued that the school, and the endowment that funds it, could be spending hundreds of millions more than it does. Because of Milton Hershey’s restrictive deed on the endowment, the charity cannot dip into any of its principal, now worth $16 billion. (That’s roughly the size of the endowment of the University of Pennsylvania, which is not subject to those constraints.) It can spend the income earned from those holdings, but it only spends part of that each year and has amassed about $1 billion in unspent income. The school recently received court approval to use some of those funds to build and run six preschool centers around the state that, in five years, will serve 900 impoverished children, a potentially significant expansion of its mission.
By far the nation’s richest private school, Milton Hershey currently spends about $139,000 per child each year in total costs. The residential school vigorously screens its applicants, and it offers rigorous academics as well as medical, dental and social services to students, many of whose families are below the federal poverty line.
A spokesperson for the school, Lisa Scullin, said in a statement that it has provided Heist with “extensive financial information and will continue to respond to any reasonable requests in his capacity as a board member.”
Heist said in the suit that the financial information provided didn’t include everything he was asking for and contained inconsistencies. Ricardo Meza, Heist’s lawyer and a former federal prosecutor in the Chicago area, said, “We are going to let the complaint speak for itself.”
Heist, who lives in Chicago and is a Hershey graduate himself, said he needed the records to ensure that school funds were not being “wasted,” to find out whether the school reported accurate information to the IRS, and to determine if consultants “exerted undue influence in order to receive funds.”
A spokesperson for Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, when asked whether the office plans to look into the issues raised by Heist, said the office had been “made aware of the petition and will monitor it, as we do with all legal filings against charitable entities across the Commonwealth.”