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.
As trust is diminished at the national level, trust in what have been considered trustworthy institutions begins to erode at all the levels below. Lack of trust of course creates opportunity for those in charge and so it goes.
(according to the New Haven Register, over in Wallingford, CT, the town legislators have agreed that nonprofits must "send in 990 financial forms and a statement of use for town funds that would be appropriated as a written agreement that they'll (town funds) be used for exactly what was allocated".
Note that one Council member acknowledged that "there's a lot of programs where I think the organizations are performing a role that the government couldn't do as efficiently or as inexpensive". Of course this statement is both good and bad news for nonprofits, especially those who take-on a government role where it's budget becomes dependent on the government but that's a story for another entry.
Meanwhile, I would note that 990's (the federal tax return) are available in multiple places and at a nonprofit's office so they are not secrets while a statement promising to use municipal money for what it was given is essentially a given in the acceptance of the money. Restricted gifts and contracts are just that, restricted.
Paranoia and lack of trust? Absolutely! And in reality government always can stop payments AND never make a future grant or contract. Yes, accountability matters but government has plenty of vehicles for ensuring it gets what it wants.
Nonprofit boards, or at least their organizations, are facing unprecedented challenges. What was once perceived to be a relatively dependable source of income is essentially vanishing. In turn and particularly for nonprofits with few other sources of income, staffing and programming will be affected, likely shrunk.
What to do now? Well, don’t panic. Take a deep collective breath. The next steps have to be even and measured. Common sense principles dictate that when a responsible body sees danger in the headlights (as well as side and rearview mirrors), it’s time to immediately assess the situation with facts — not biases and opinions — and take action based on this assessment. Panic will only result in disaster.
Assess the Situation and Identify Options
The board, perhaps with a task force formed to review in advance of the first board meeting, should call upon its management to conduct a quick but thorough analysis of what the nonprofit is now facing and what the options are. The analysis should include the collection of data, and the management report should summarize the data and highlight what is the true condition in addition to what is the “so what?” of the condition. Should management offer that current program demands limit the ability to create a clear fact-based picture, then the management should call on knowledgeable volunteers (aka key informants).
In addition to the fact-based picture, ask management to either propose or recommend options for action.
The board should consider the management report as its sole focus in one to three called meetings scheduled within a fairly brief period of time. Strategic meetings are likely best held to no more than three hours.
Besides reviewing and discussing the facts, members should then determine the criteria for decision-making. The criteria and facts will then inform action. The end result: A strategy for the organization’s financial future based on facts as well as criteria/rationale for that strategy. And yes, it is possible that the board may consider more than how to raise additional (aka replacement) funds, such as downsizing programs, reducing staff, merging with another organization or closing the doors.
Distracting nonprofits from their core mission — oftentimes not ensuring the provision of mission-benefit outcomes.
Establishing a nonprofit as merely an extension of government and not an independent mission-driven organization — neither a third leg of the stool.
Be an unreliable source of support — because of the nature of government.
Of course, no single source of support is ever truly reliable, including fee-for-service, and sometimes one can just not predict what is not in their control.
But there remains that every nonprofit is experiencing the reality of funding unpredictability and the resulting chaos — no matter the size and funding strategy. This is true if for no other reason than that those destined to lose federal monies are now additional competition for those who regularly seek funds. Sustainability strategies must now be revisited particularly if they have not been regularly reviewed prior to the current state of most communities.
In summary, nonprofit boards have a fiduciary duty to consider short- and long-range financial strategies, particularly in light of the dramatic shift in government priorities. But they must discuss these realities — in a prudent common-sense manner — calmly and with facts and the recognition that all options may not be or even appear like those the organization has ever had to consider. And they must take action.
Yesterday's (3/24/2025) New York Times asked "Why Is Big Bird So Sad?" The answer: Big Bird's wings are being cut by HBO (alright, not just Big Bird but his whole Sesame Street nest. HBO has not renewed its contract to carry Sesame Street - a contract that actually generated a great profit. For a year now SS has been working on a new deal but that's just not going to happen. And yes, there's a whole lot of other environmental factors that are forcing Big Bird to rethink the location of its nest or whether it can even have a nest going forward.
I of course must ask: what has the board been thinking? Could they have been better prepared for this change of events including a loss of interest in this type of programming? More in-depth Marketing planning and scenario planning and strategic planning all might have led to a different result but now, it all may be too late.
Yes, Big Bird is sad and now it maybe time to hang up its wings along with all of its friends.
Bye, bye Yellow Bird?
Here's the New York Times article that describes the whole predictament.
Why Does Big Bird Look So Sad?
Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit behind “Sesame Street,” is confronting what executives have described as a “perfect storm” of problems.
Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit responsible for Elmo, Big Bird, Cookie Monster and the rest of the stars of “Sesame Street,” is confronting what executives have described as a “perfect storm” of problems.
The organization is losing its lucrative contract with HBO, which has paid $30 million to $35 million a year for a decade for rights to the show. With Hollywood suddenly watching every penny, nothing nearly as rich is in the offing.
Then there is the Trump administration. Its cuts to the United States Agency for International Development have stripped Sesame Workshop of some valuable grants that the nonprofit did not anticipate abruptly losing. The administration’s attacks on public media could bring some further cuts.
What’s more, “Sesame Street” is at risk of getting lost in the shuffle of a deeply competitive and fast-changing children’s TV landscape. The show reliably ranks far behind shows like “Bluey” and “Cocomelon” in Nielsen’s streaming numbers — and YouTube is eating up even more of the attention.
Together, those forces have left the organization trying to figure out how to navigate the coming years, a crisis that the nonprofit says will require a “reset.”
Sesame Workshop cut about 20 percent of its staff, or nearly 100 people, a few weeks ago. Without the cost cuts, the organization would face a deficit of nearly $40 million next year, according to internal documents reviewed by The New York Times. Even with the cuts, it has had to draw $6 million from its investment fund for the first time in more than a decade to help cover some of the budget shortfalls.
The uncertainty surrounding “Sesame Street” is just the latest fallout from the significant changes sweeping the television business in the streaming era. Other longtime television franchises and classic genres of broadcast and cable are facing similar challenges. In a concession that change is needed, beginning next year “Sesame Street” will have a reimagined look.
Sherrie Westin, a 27-year veteran of Sesame Workshop who became chief executive last year, acknowledged in an interview that the nonprofit faced a new economic reality but said she was “confident we will be able to sustain this work.”
“This is not a rejection of ‘Sesame Street,’ and ‘Sesame Street’ is not going away,” she said. “But we absolutely have a responsibility to change as the world around us is changing if we want to continue to deliver on our mission.”
“Sesame Street,” which has been airing since 1969, is one of the longest-running programs in television. The organization behind it — originally named the Children’s Television Workshop — has hit financial headwinds before. Just a decade ago, DVD sales plummeted. They were a key source of revenue, and Sesame Workshop had to hunt for a lifeline.
That was when HBO, which had just debuted a stand-alone streaming service, paid the license fee of $30 million to $35 million to air new episodes as well as back-library episodes and specials, two people with knowledge of the deal said.
The windfall allowed “Sesame Street” to add episodes every season. PBS, which had aired “Sesame Street” from the start, would then air them many months after they appeared on HBO.
Marrangement kicked off controversy, but it paid off financially. Even as recently as 2022, Sesame Workshop generated $271 million in revenue and more than $20 million in profit, according to financial forms.
The end of the HBO deal, though, has coincided with a big shift in the streaming business. Wall Street soured on the chase for subscribers instead of profits, leading companies to cut way back on spending. The Peak TV era died, the number of new shows being made plummeted and an industrywide contraction took hold.
When Max, HBO’s streaming service, announced plans to drop the Sesame deal last year, its executives said children’s programming was no longer “core to our strategy.” Instead, Max made a two-year, $6-million-a-year deal to stream nonexclusive back-library episodes, according to internal documents.
In April, Sesame Workshop executives met with major streaming companies to begin negotiations for a new distribution deal. The executives anticipated reaching one within several months.
But the reality of the post-Peak TV environment quickly became apparent, and the timeline was pushed back several times. Nearly a year later, Sesame Workshop remains in discussions with major streaming players like Netflix, YouTube and Amazon Prime Video, according to the internal documents. It is also in discussions with other outlets like Tubi, Roku and PBS.
Even before the search for a new distribution partner, Sesame Workshop had acknowledged that it needed to make changes for a rapidly changing — and deeply competitive — landscape.
The 56th season of “Sesame Street” goes into production next month, and will be revamped. The show will drop its traditional magazine-like format in favor of three segments — two 11-minute stories to open and close a show and a shorter animated feature in between. The show will also try to increase comedic elements, music and animation.
Sesame Workshop found that parents trust and respect “Sesame Street” but that children adore a show like “Bluey” because it is more likely to provide bigger laughs and induce them to play after an episode ends, according to internal documents. Children also engaged with brands and shows like “PAW Patrol,” “Mickey Mouse Clubhouse,” “Peppa Pig,” “Baby Shark,” “Cocomelon” and “Blippi” more than “Sesame Street” last year.
Then there’s YouTube, which is awash in children’s content, some of it high quality (The Ms. Rachel channel is a standout and was recently licensed by Netflix to good returns) and much of it not.
igh marks for its commitment to educating children with each episode.
“The environment around Sesame Workshop is changing so dramatically that what they are doing, and doing well, may not be as desirable as something that gives you a quicker hit of dopamine,” said Dr. Michael Rich, the director of the Digital Wellness Lab at Boston Children’s Hospital.
Despite the troubles facing the organization, the timing of the job cuts was still notable to staff. Much of Sesame Workshop’s administrative work force — which includes education experts, fund-raisers and paralegals — had been preparing to declare a union for months. On March 4, the employees announced that they were forming a union and kicked it off with a rally outside the nonprofit’s Midtown Manhattan offices. Immediately after the rally, workers assembled for a staff meeting where they learned about the cuts.
“We really went from our highest highs to our lowest lows that day,” said Phoebe Gilpin, a senior director of formal learning at Sesame Workshop, who was laid off. “It was a moment of joyful celebration and elation, and then emotional whiplash.
Six of the seven workers who spoke at that rally soon found out they were laid off, said David Hamer-Hodges, a director of organizing at a local chapter of the Office and Professional Employees International Union, the union the workers are seeking to join.
A spokeswoman for Sesame Workshop said the job cuts “were planned and fully decided upon well before we were aware of employees’ intent to organize, and the union’s official demand for recognition coincided with the announcement of the layoffs.”
The union efforts will continue despite the job cuts, Mr. Hamer-Hodges said, though Sesame Workshop leadership has indicated that it will not voluntarily recognize the union.
In an interview, Ms. Westin, the chief executive, said the nonprofit would take new steps to find a way to fund its work, including through “additional philanthropic development.” Even if the revenue from a new distribution deal is smaller than the HBO pact, there is a good chance the show will be available either in more households than Max or for free, as it used to be.
“I am confident that we will get through this, and more children will have access to ‘Sesame Street’ than ever before,” Ms. Westin said. “It’s critical because the world needs ‘Sesame Street’ more than ever before.”
Ms. Gilpin said the broader changes in children’s media had left her and her departing colleagues with an uncertain future.
“‘Sesame Street’ has been such a stable force in children’s media for such a long time,” she said. “People who have worked in it their whole career are now facing a landscape that is very unfriendly. If what I’m committed to doing is children’s media, where can I go to keep doing this? There are not a lot of places to go.”
Kudos to Kenny Jacoby and USA Today for nailing it on their understanding of what is a conflict of interests for a nonprofit board and its members. In his USA Today article M. Jacoby is spot on describing so many conflicts of interest he could construct a playbook for how to avoid conflicts of interest. Despite their denials, I have no doubt the Dallas Stars employees at the center of this article failed their duty of loyalty and essentially, violated the rights and responsibilities of the beneficiaries of this organization. Hopefully the revelations here can be acted upon the the Attorneys General who oversee the nonprofits in their respective states and the respective boards will clean-up their acts.
'They'll hold you over a barrel': How NHL team's execs milked youth hockey families for profit
Because the $2 billion NHL team controls many facets of youth hockey in Texas and Oklahoma, including much of the ice, families have little choice but to play by its rules.
Three Dallas Stars employees used their positions with the National Hockey League team and atop prominent youth hockey nonprofit organizations to profit at thousands of families’ expense, a USA TODAY investigation found.
The employees – Damon Boettcher, Lucas Reid and Brad Buckland – organized dozens of Stars-run youth hockey tournaments that required out-of-town participants to book rooms for a minimum number of nights at select hotels. At the same time, the employees separately ran a company, Stay2Play LLC, that acted as a middleman between the Stars and the hotels, taking a cut of the revenue.
The arrangement went on for 4 ½ years. Nearly half the participants at 48 Stars-run tournaments from mid-2020 to December 2024 hailed from outside the host city and its surrounding region, the investigation found. Each of those more than 20,000 participants’ hotel payments may have unknowingly padded the bank accounts of the three Stars employees.
Parents couldn’t find a cheaper hotel or split an Airbnb. Those who tried to skirt the requirement risked their children being kicked out of the tournament and the forfeiture of all their team’s games – without a refund of entry fees, usually between $1,000 and $2,000 per team. Instead, they were forced to pay hundreds of dollars for hotel rooms they did not always want or need.
USA TODAY reviewed more than 40 official tournament rulebooks detailing the requirements, state business filings, travel agency registries, website archives and invoices from two tournament hotels that charged $162 to $175 per night after taxes. Most tournaments required a minimum three-night stay; some required four.
Stay-to-play requirements are somewhat common across youth sports and maddening to many parents. The organization hosting the tournament usually receives a kickback from the hotel booking revenue, and sometimes a third-party company that coordinates with the hotels also takes a cut. The difference in this case is that the kickbacks went to the same people tasked with organizing, overseeing and shaping the rules for the tournaments, as opposed to an independent entity. And those people had multiple conflicts of interest.
Boettcher, Reid and Buckland carried out the operation not only while they were Stars employees, but while Reid served as president of the nonprofit Texas Amateur Hockey Association – the USA Hockey affiliate that acts as the governing body overseeing youth and adult hockey in Texas and Oklahoma – and Buckland served as secretary.
One of the association’s primary responsibilities is facilitating tournaments for its members – the same tournaments from which Reid and Buckland personally profited – by validating that they comply with USA Hockey rules. Although the president and secretary don’t personally vote on which tournaments to approve, they set the agenda for the association and vote on changes to policies and procedures. A proposal for a new rule barring stay-to-play requirements, for instance, would have to go through them.
Parents whose membership fees support the nonprofit expect its board members to act in their interests. Yet two of those board members had a financial incentive to ensure families kept paying for unwanted hotel stays.
As of January, the three employees appear to no longer work for the Stars. Reid and Buckland remain on the Texas Amateur Hockey Association's board.
Reid and Buckland did not respond to phone or email messages seeking comment. In an emailed statement, Boettcher denied any wrongdoing. He declined to be interviewed and did not answer specific questions about the arrangement from USA TODAY.
“Our goal, as an independent company, when the lessening threat of Covid finally allowed restoration of more normal activity was to facilitate families participating in tournaments in North Texas venues,” Boettcher’s statement said. “We have always attempted to have all parents and families be satisfied with the choices provided.”
The Stars also declined to answer specific questions about the arrangement from USA TODAY.
“The Dallas Stars are no longer affiliated with Stay2Play LLC and plan to reinstate a new stay-to-play provider for our tournaments this fall,” Stars director of communications Joe Calvillo said in an emailed statement. “The Dallas Stars are committed to providing the best possible experience for all players, teams and families who participate in our leagues and tournaments.”
USA Hockey officials did not respond to requests for comment. Attorneys representing the Texas Amateur Hockey Association said in an email that they do not consider the arrangement a conflict of interest under USA Hockey rules.
The conflicts of interest raise concerns about potential self-dealing, which is when a person with a fiduciary duty to an organization takes an action for personal gain, legal experts who spoke to USA TODAY said. For some parents, it was just the latest example of the Stars capitalizing on their children’s hockey aspirations.
“It’s a horrible mandate,” said Shanna Stout, whose son’s team in Oklahoma played in several Stars tournaments in Dallas. “Hockey is an incredibly expensive sport, and when they see an opportunity to make money off of parents that are stuck in the South, there’s no other rink.”
Because the $2 billion NHL team controls many facets of youth hockey in Texas and Oklahoma, including much of the ice, Stout said families have little choice but to play by its rules.
“You kind of feel like you’re stuck in a monopoly,” she said. “And they take advantage of it.”
Youth tournaments drive big money, frustration
Unlike most parts of the country, amateur hockey in Texas runs through the state's NHL team.
The Dallas Stars and the team’s executives own or operate eight of the 11 ice rinks in the Dallas-Ft. Worth region, city contracts and county property records show.
The Stars run the house and high school leagues and have their hands in the travel league. Although the Texas Amateur Hockey Association and Dallas Stars Travel Hockey League are ostensibly independent nonprofit entities, their boards have often been filled with Stars bigwigs.
Tournaments are a major cash cow for the Stars' rinks, called StarCenters. Every year, they host around a dozen tournaments for youth and adult teams across America and other countries. The largest ones bring 160 or more teams to Dallas.
For families, the biggest expense, by far, is lodging.
Stars tournaments have had stay-to-play mandates since at least 2019, website archives and official tournament rulebooks show. They require families to check in the day before the tournament begins and check out the day it ends. If they don’t, they risk disqualification.
Stay-to-play requirements have long frustrated hockey families, said Sten Carlson, a coach in Austin whose daughter has played in several Stars tournaments. The hotel rates offered to tournament attendees often seem higher than those for the general public, he said – a sentiment expressed by multiple parents who spoke to USA TODAY.
It would be cheaper and more practical for Carlson’s family to commute from Austin, he said, particularly on days when their team isn’t scheduled for an early game. For a tournament in 2023, Carlson’s daughter’s team was forced to book three nights, checking in on a Thursday, even though the team didn’t play until 12:30 p.m. on Friday.
“We could easily wake up at five and jump in the car, be up there by eight o'clock,” he said.
Carlson said he did not know that the same people who organized the tournaments for the Stars were personally profiting from them – but he was not surprised.
“I think we all sort of suspected something like that, to be honest,” he said. “Any time you have got a large amount of money moving through places, somebody always seems to want to get their hands on it.”
A new company – and subtle change
The Stars and Hilton used to have a partnership that required tournament participants to book their stays at Hilton-branded properties. Hilton spokeswoman Mina Radman said those properties, many of which are independently owned and operated, provided room blocks for Dallas Stars tournaments from 2017 to 2020.
That changed in July 2020 when the three Stars employees, whose job responsibilities included putting on the tournaments, filed paperwork to do business in Texas as Stay2Play LLC.
Boettcher listed himself as the president, business records show. Reid, Buckland and Boettcher’s wife, Cassandra Boettcher, were vice presidents. Another for-profit company run by the Boettchers claimed a 50% ownership stake in Stay2Play. Cassandra Boettcher also did not respond to phone or email messages from USA TODAY.
Damon Boettcher, at the time, served as the Stars’ vice president of StarCenter facilities. Reid was the Stars’ vice president of amateur sports and partnership development, as well as Texas Amateur Hockey Association’s president.
Buckland served as the Stars’ tournament director and as secretary of both the association and the travel league, which required member teams to play in at least one Stars tournament a year.
From July 2020 forward, Stay2Play replaced Hilton in the official Stars tournament rulebooks as the “exclusive provider” of hotel accommodations.
Before the change, the Stars’ tournament website directed participants to book rooms through stay2play.online, a website adorned with Stars and Hilton branding. After, it instead directed them to stay2playonline.com, which uses a similar logo but lacks the Stars or Hilton branding.
The new site was registered to Stay2Play LLC.
'They'll hold you over a barrel'
Stay2Play remained the “exclusive provider” of hotel accommodations for Stars tournaments until January 2025, tournament rulebooks show.
Two significant developments took place around that month. The Stars deleted the minimum-stay requirements and all references to Stay2Play from the rulebook for its upcoming MLK Invitational tournament. And Boettcher, Reid and Buckland were removed from the Stars’ online front office directory.
None of the three still work for the Stars, according to their LinkedIn profiles. Calvillo, the Stars spokesperson, said the organization does not comment on “personnel matters.”
Reid and Buckland are still listed on the Texas Amateur Hockey Association and Dallas Stars Travel Hockey League websites as members of the nonprofits’ executive boards.
None of the 11 members of the association’s board of directors or the travel league’s president, Paul Freudigman, responded to requests for comment.
Reid and Buckland “have dedicated countless hours to building one of the most cohesive districts in the nation,” Steven Stapleton, a Michigan-based attorney who represents the Texas Amateur Hockey Association, said in an email.
“Many TAHA members are engaged in other professional endeavors,” the email said. “This does not preclude any of them from running for and serving the TAHA community.”
During the 4 ½ years in which Stay2Play was the exclusive hotel provider, 48 Stars tournaments attracted more than 12,000 different players, coaches and team members from out-of-town teams, a USA TODAY analysis of online team rosters found. Many participated in more than one tournament.
Among them was Stout, who lives in Oklahoma City about a three-hour drive from Dallas. She paid $512 for a three-night stay at the Embassy Suites for the Stars’ Labor Day Kickoff tournament – a mandatory tournament for all of the more than 100 teams in the Dallas Stars Travel Hockey League, including her son’s.
Hilton, the parent company for Embassy Suites, declined to answer specific questions about the arrangement from USA TODAY. Radman, its spokesperson, said in an emailed statement that Hilton “has never had a relationship with Stay2Play.”
Stout's son’s team played its first game of the tournament at 3:45 p.m. on Saturday, but tournament rules required them to check into the hotel on Friday night. They stayed for three nights, even though the team played games on only two of the days.
“It’s hockey in the South,” she said. “They’ll hold you over a barrel, that’s for sure.”
Conflicts of interest raise concern
The Stay2Play arrangement was rife with potential conflicts of interest, said Todd Haugh, director of the Institute for Corporate Governance and Ethics at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business, who researches corporate compliance, organizational wrongdoing and white-collar crime.
Employees have a duty of loyalty to their organization, he said, meaning they cannot engage in self-dealing, take opportunities away from the organization, or set up a company to overcharge or otherwise take advantage of it.
Reid and Buckland, he said, legally owed the same fiduciary duty to the Stars. And they owed an ethical duty to the membership of the nonprofits they helped run: the Texas Amateur Hockey Association and Dallas Stars Travel Hockey League. Families who collectively pay those organizations hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual membership fees, Haugh said, “have an expectation that the board members are being good stewards of their funds.”
Not all conflicts of interest are inherently illegal or unethical, Haugh said. But to be above board, he said, several criteria must be met.
The deal must be disclosed to the highest officers of the organization, who must openly discuss it and independently decide whether to approve it, he said. Such discussions should be documented in meeting minutes, and any parties with a personal stake in the outcome cannot vote on it.
The deal must be as “arms-length” as possible, Haugh said – both sides must act in their own interest, without influencing or pressuring each other.
Additionally, the organization must not only get real value from the deal but also fair-market value. The deal must be in the financial interest of the organization, which can’t pay more for it than a competitor would charge.
For all those criteria to be met, Haugh said, “It would have to be a heck of a deal.”
“If they just set up a company so they could get fees,” he said, “that obviously would not be on the up-and-up.”
Asked whether those criteria were met in this case, the Stars and the Texas Amateur Hockey Association attorneys declined to answer. USA Hockey spokespeople and Dallas Stars Travel Hockey League board members did not respond to questions.
Stapleton, the attorney representing the association, said in an email that “there is no conflict of interest implicated by any TAHA Board Member with respect to TAHA operated and administered tournaments, as that term is defined by USA Hockey’s Conflict of Interest policy." He added that the association itself did not contract with Stay2Play LLC.
USA Hockey policy states that conflicts of interest “exist when an individual’s activities or relationships present the potential for improper personal gain or advantage, or an adverse effect on the interests of USA Hockey.”
One example it lists is when individuals have a financial interest in a decision they make in their capacity acting on behalf of USA Hockey.
Another is when such a person has a client that owns or operates a facility being considered as the host of a USA Hockey event.
Kenny Jacoby is an investigative reporter for USA TODAY who covers issues in sports, higher education and law enforcement. Contact him by email at [email protected]. Follow him on X @kennyjacoby or Bluesky @kennyjacoby.bsky.social.
Say What: According to the US Government, any work focused on inclusiveness will lose federal dollars (you know, the money taxpayers pay to the US Government to meet the lowest common denominator of needs, like education). And some States are following along like the case of Kentucky (see the following Kentucky Lantern). The Governor says the Kentucky legislature bill is harmful to Kentucky citizens. But the White House says it's inclusiveness is illegal. So much for the melting pot or salad.
Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear has issued his expected veto of a Republican-backed bill aimed at eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives (DEI) at Kentucky’s public universities.
However, the GOP-controlled legislature will likely override the veto when it returns to Frankfort.
Beshear announced his veto of House Bill 4 in a Thursday afternoon social media post. A video of the governor signing the veto showed advocates who opposed the bill, including University of Louisville student Bradley Price, stand behind the governor in his office.
Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear has vetoed House Bill 4, banning DEI in Kentucky public universities and colleges. (Photo by Liam Niemeyer, Kentucky Lantern)
“Now, I believe in the golden rule that says we love our neighbor as ourself, and there are no exceptions, no asterisks. We love and accept everyone,” Beshear said. “This bill isn’t about love. House Bill 4 is about hate. So I’m going to try a little act of love myself, and I’m going to veto it right now.”
Price, who was among students who discussed their displeasure with the bill with Rep. James Tipton, R-Taylorsville, after it was heard in his committee, praised Beshear’s veto in the video.
“By vetoing this bill, Gov. Beshear is telling marginalized people across the state that he stands with us,” Price said. “He will fight to make sure that we have access to education.”
The bill’s primary sponsor, Rep. Jennifer Decker, R-Waddy, said during the House debate that her legislation “would allow our universities and colleges to return to their focus away from social engineering to provide Kentucky students with excellent academic instruction in an environment that fosters critical thinking through open, constructive dialog.”
Should the bill become law, HB 4 would increase oversight of public colleges and universities to ensure they do not spend dollars on or have employees devoted to advancing diversity. By June 30, university boards must adopt a policy “on viewpoint neutrality that prohibits discrimination on the basis of an individual’s political or social viewpoint and promotes intellectual diversity within the institution,” the bill says.
Other measures in the bill include that universities may not have DEI offices or employees and cannot provide DEI training. Also, by October of each year, universities must submit reports to the Legislative Research Commission that include a list of policies and programs that are “Designed or implemented to promote or provide differential treatment or benefits to individuals on the basis of religion, race, sex, color, or national origin” and required under federal or state law or a court order.
Beshear, who in recent months has become seen as a possible candidate for the 2028 Democratic presidential primary, has repeatedly defended DEI policies. Before the veto period began, Beshear told reporters “anything that is telling any of our Kentuckians that they are lesser than someone else, we shouldn’t be doing.” Before that, the governor attended the 60th anniversary commemoration of Bloody Sunday in Selma, Alabama, and told the crowd “diversity is a strength and never a weakness.”
While his veto is likely to be overridden by Republicans in Frankfort, Beshear’s public disagreement with the policy allows him to strike back at what has become a focus of the Trump administration. During his address to Congress last month, President Donald Trump railed against DEI initiatives while waging other culture war issues. The president has also taken other steps to eliminate DEI, including signing an executive order that directed his administration to identify potential civil compliance investigations of corporations, nonprofit organizations, some higher education institutions and more.
Days after the Senate gave its approval to the legislation, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights announced UK was among 45 higher education institutions under federal investigation for “allegedly engaging in race-exclusionary practices in their graduate programs.”
Lawmakers return to Frankfort on March 27 and 28 to finish the 2025 legislative session.
Kentucky Lantern is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kentucky Lantern maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jamie Lucke for questions: [email protected].
As noted in 3/24/2025 1440 Daily digest, in order to keep its Federal Grants, Columbia University is agreeing to new terms set by the White House. Yes, it's a lot of money that Columbia gets. But the "so what" is not really about whether or why Columbia is kowtowing to the White House (kind-of obvious don't you think?). No, the question is more about what compromises in mission and values must a nonprofit make to get money to hopefully pursue mission.
The options are of course include the board revisiting mission to assess what activity is needed to pursue mission. An equally important step is to visit core values to understand what programs fit or do not fit when pursuing mission. And finally of course, the nonprofit must ask what compromises the donor states are necessary to receive the money. And when mission and values conflict with what the donor wants.....?
Funnily enough, compromising with the White House is not the only compromise Columbia or other institutions have made or will make to accept monies. Think about when an institution accepts money for a building with naming rights or all the corporate program sponsorship or pursuing less than stellar scholar-athletes to ensure success on the field or courts. Nonprofits regularly make compromises to get money for mission. It's just the way business is done.
Columbia Concedes
Columbia University has agreed to a series of demands from the Trump administration in an effort to restore $400M in funding that was revoked earlier this month. The administration had canceled federal grants and contracts over concerns that Columbia failed to adequately protect against antisemitism on campus.
The university's policy changes include banning identity-concealing masks during protests, hiring 36 campus security officers who can arrest or remove people, appointing a new senior vice provost to oversee the Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies department, and implementing a formal definition of antisemitism. It is unclear whether the changes are sufficient enough to reinstate federal funding.
The move has raised concerns about government interference in academic affairs and sets a precedent for other colleges and universities facing similar scrutiny, including Harvard, Stanford, and the University of Michigan. Last week, the Trump administration paused $175M in funding to the University of Pennsylvania for allowing a transgender woman to compete in women's sports.
From the Philanthropy Roundtable we hear a concern over a recently proposed bill in South Carolina to "encourage" nonprofits to report sensitive demographic information about their leadership. The Roundtable suggests that such a "encouragement" does not necessarily encourage "true diversity" which essentially, as I understand it and agree, urges nonprofits to ensure that they include the types of skills, knowledge and experiences around their tables that will fully contribute to the successful pursuit of mission.
At the same time I endorse this approach to how to this understanding of diversity, I note that foundations, especially community foundations, have for years been asking their grantees the same questions that this South Carolina bill proposes. The question: specify the demographic diversity of the organization's leadership. Seems contradictory - no?
Last week, lawmakers in South Carolina heard a bill encouraging nonprofits to report sensitive demographic information about their leadership to the state. The state’s Senate subcommittee on Regulatory and Local Government considered S.B. 203, which would give nonprofits in South Carolina the option to include demographic data about their organizational leadership in certain official filings.
This applies when nonprofits file official documents like incorporation papers or registration forms to raise funds in the state. The reportable information includes details like age, education, gender, race, salary, military service, disability status and leadership experience.
While technically optional, this disclosure bill is merely a step away from mandated demographic collection by the government, which should not be involved in a nonprofit’s operations.
When nonprofits are forced to release board or leadership demographics, serious concerns for donors and the philanthropic community are raised as such disclosures infringe unnecessarily on leadership’s personal information and privacy. This breach of privacy could discourage qualified individuals from joining boards or applying for certain jobs, reducing the diverse perspectives crucial for strong governance. Additionally, encouraging demographic reporting shifts nonprofits’ focus away from their core missions, focusing on arbitrary box checking instead of community impact.
Instead of focusing solely on the demographic makeup of their organizational leadership, nonprofits should have the freedom to focus on True Diversity, an equality-based and holistic approach that values each person as a unique individual. Excellent results are best achieved by bringing together people with diverse skill sets, backgrounds, perspectives and personal experiences to further a common mission. Each organization is in the best position to know what types of diversity in leadership and staffing will best support its mission—and thus strengthen the communities it serves.
Philanthropy Roundtable continues to monitor similar bills across the country in states like Hawaii, New Jersey and New York. Last year, the Illinois legislature passed a comparable law, which is now involved in litigation. If South Carolina passes S.B. 203, it might not be long before demographic disclosure would be mandated for nonprofits and expanded to include collection of board information.
The Roundtable submitted testimony to the subcommittee encouraging its members to table the legislation.
So much for the 3-Legged Stool Paradigm if the following story about the dependence by nonprofits on government monies rings true. The 3-Legged Stool Paradigm that exists specifically in a capitalist democracy poses that the nonprofit sector fills the void where the for-profit sector has no incentive to produce goods and services (aka profits) and the public sector has no mandate to provide goods and services that meet the lowest common denominator of needs. It appears from this report that more nonprofits have opted to meet their missions by serving as an extension of government and there lays the challenge. This strategy has resulted in a sector that apparently can't pursue mission except as an extension of government. What's wrong with this picture?
The majority of Ohio nonprofits backed by government grants would not be able to cover their expenses if they were to lose those funds, a recent study found.
The study, conducted by D.C.-based economic think tank the Urban Institute, shows that more than 72% of nonprofits in Cuyahoga County, as well as more than 65% in Lorain, 55% in Medina, 67% in Stark and 77% in Summit counties would be at-risk without government support, according to figures on their 2021 tax filings. Statewide, 72% of nonprofits would be in the red without government funding.
The Urban Institute released its findings, which included government funding from local, state and federal sources, at a time when President Donald Trump has created uncertainty for nonprofits nationwide by freezing, then unfreezing, all federal spending and slashing thousands of federal jobs.
That uncertainty is affecting nonprofits in Northeast Ohio, said Rob Fischer, who chairs the Master of Nonprofit Organizations Program at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.
“There's a lot of speculation now, but what it definitely has done is it has caused an across-the-board tightening of how people are thinking about their revenue,” said Fischer. “Which means … they're going to delay spending on anything they can, and they're not going to make longer-term investments until they get some assurance that things have stabilized.”
Large nonprofit organizations may feel shockwaves if government funding is cut, Fischer said, but added it's the smaller organizations that make up a larger share of local nonprofits and are more likely to suffer from funding cuts. Two-thirds of Cuyahoga County’s nonprofits have revenues of $500,000 or less.
“We're all familiar with Cleveland Clinic and Case Western Reserve and UH, but we often don't think about the street-level nonprofits, but they are a vital part of the fabric of our community,” Fischer said.
In Ohio, nonprofits received a total of $8 billion in government grants, with Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), Franklin (Columbus) and Hamilton (Cincinnati) receiving the most government funding, the study showed.
Of the counties that house Ohio's biggest cities, Franklin County nonprofits are the most vulnerable, the Urban Institute report shows. With 726 nonprofits receiving government funding, almost 84% would be in the red if all government funding was lost.
Cuyahoga County has about 6,000 nonprofits, according to the Cleveland Foundation; 550, or about 10%, of those receive government grants. But even those who are not directly at risk may feel the effects of cuts, Fischer said.
“Even if my nonprofit doesn't have [a government grant] directly, that money is in the systems and in the environment around me,” he said. “So if it evaporates, it's going to affect everything else because money gets displaced when other money goes missing. So if the feds withdraw, even though those smaller nonprofits may not be benefiting directly from a government grant, it might affect their other revenue sources that they have because it affects other partners that they work with.”
According to the study, Cuyahoga County ranks 32 out of Ohio’s 88 counties for the largest share of nonprofits that would operate at a loss if they lost government funding. All government-backed nonprofits in the rural counties of Harrison, Lawrence, Morgan, Paulding and Vinton would be unable to cover their expenses.
Overall, Ohio ranks it 12th among states with the highest percentage of at-risk nonprofits. Trump won 11 of the top 12 states with the highest share of at-risk nonprofits in the 2024 election, including Ohio.
Corrected: March 18, 2025 at 4:34 PM EDT
A previous version of this story incorrectly stated that federal grants to states topped $1 billion dollars in 2022. It topped $1 trillion.
How good can a nonprofit board be if its members don't come from a broad spectrum of knowledge and experience, particularly that knowledge and experience of its constituents - those who services and mission should benefit? How much common sense can a board really have in its decision-making process and power if the work it does doesn't get done by people actually "in the know"? And, finally, how balanced in its perspective and responsibility can a board be if the people at the table don't have multiple perspectives?
The answer is simple - it can not. Yes, the original nonprofit boards were comprised of networks of "do gooders" who saw a world that conflicted with their values and were moved to make change. While principally comprised of all-white women, these boards were motivated by their values and sometimes they did good and sometimes, not so much. Of course they had no guardrails nor checks and balances to question their work. If donors were moved, they gave. If not, they did not give or might even start another nonprofit to counter or duplicate the very work started by these original groups. You might note that, while not white women, the variety of faith groups in a given geography mirrored these processes.
Now, there is an attack called anti-DEI work. Those who accept the terms of this attacked are failing to recognize that the attack is merely based in language and a gross misunderstanding on the power of achieving balance and use of common sense.
The nonprofit sector, while still evolving, may be the forerunner in the label of DEI but it too is misguided in permitting itself to be so-labelled. In reality, the nonprofit has pursued balance and common sense in its effort to pursue mission. Let's not get trapped in the labels and more importantly, continue mission - to serve and create a world that works for those who have less voice, money and power.
Common sense and balance, that's what the nonprofit sector has to offer.
It is clear now that what had been the operating paradigm of how democratic capitalism has changed. What has been commonly referred to as the 3-Legged Stool paradigm where the corporate/private sector is incentivized to meet needs and wants by generating wealth; the public sector is incentivized to address the lowest common denominator of needs through elections and taxes; and the nonprofit sector is tasked with filling the void between the two sectors (legs).
It was via this paradigm that Federal, State and County agencies have contracted with nonprofits to fulfill the government mandates so as not to have to duplicate what the nonprofits do best and what the for-profits have no incentive to do (unless of course the Government makes it worth their while while still meeting the needs of the pubic). But now the nonprofit sector is facing a shift in government (federal) priorities, based more on political (apparently) agendas rather than addressing what are the common denominator of needs (or at least less apparent).
The consequences of this shift in priorities and criteria playout typically as seen in the following article about Climate United, an organization focused on de-carbonization work to make a cleaner environment. This work was championed by Biden and administrations before that but because of such championing, every effort to stop any similar effort is being pursued by the current Federal administration suggesting that its awards were based singularly on political chits and that there was huge waste or fraud (none which has been proven). A detailed article reviews the situation for Climate United.
I must admit that the msn article does not highlight what I would think a better story - one that says this cutting off of federal funds is really an act of political terrorism rather than the result of a thoroughly researched and studied process to understand what is indeed in the best interest of the community aka meets the lowest common denominator of needs.
And so, the breaking of the third leg of the stool proceeds with little regard nor understanding of the role of government or the nonprofit sector. I do not anticipate a departure of this political terrorism anytime soon unless the for-profit sector says it's time to stop. Certainly it does not appear that a call to halt will come from the government sector anytime soon. And yes, we should begin to plan for many funerals of the 3rd sector in the meantime.
Kenny Jacoby
