NONPROFIT BOARD RELATIONSHIPS – USING IMPERFECT METRICS TO EVAUATE ORGANIZATIONS & THE CEO
Leave a Comment
Nonprofit Board Relationships – Using Imperfect Metrics to Evaluate Originations and the CEO.
BY: Eugene Fram
At the beginning of the year, the directors conducting the evaluation and the chief executives agree on jointly developed goals and outcome expectations. The full board must ratify the goals, which should be achievable but challenging. Some goals are clearly quantifiable (e.g. membership data, revenues) and readily available.
But some, like “community impact,” in the case of a human services group, are important, but they only can be developed within an imperfect format - that is , they are developed from small samples, or are anecdotal, subjective, interpretative or qualitative. Most nonprofits can’t spend thousands for hundreds or thousands of dollars to have an outside consultant provide statically solid data.
In these cases, the chief executive and the board must agree on subjective outcomes and the imperfect methods by which they will be developed. The chief executive has to have trust that the board members are fair people and doing the best they can to evaluate outcomes. When done over a number of years, the board and the CEO become more comfortable with the process.
Source: Policy vs. Paper Clips, Third Edition, 2011. PP.67-68
For more details see: Jerry Tally & Eugene Fram (2010) Using Imperfect Measures Well: Tracking Progress & Driving Change, Leader to Leader Journal, January. 52-58.
NONPROFIT BOARD RELATIONSHIPS – SHOULD THE BOARD MEET WITHOUT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BEING PRESENT?
By: Eugene Fram
The CEO’s involvement is central to the success of the organization. Here’s where that issue of trust comes into play. For the full board to meet without its top executive really says, “We can’t trust you to run this place.” Under normal conditions, the only time the board or any important committee should exclude the CEO is when the Audit or Assessment Committee meets with the outside or internal auditors or when his/her performance is being discussed. Let me note, however, that Sarbanes-Oxley has suggested independent directors on for-profit boards meet more often in executive sessions, without inside directors (management) being present. As a result of this change, I have a feeling there are more executive sessions being scheduled on nonprofit boards. Of course, in the nonprofit board situation, an overwhelming proportion of board directors are independent ones.
Source: “Policy vs. Paper Clips,” Third Edition 2011 pp.161-162.
NONPROFIT BOARD RELATIONSHIPS – WHAT’S IN A NAME? BENEFITS OF THE PRESIDENT/CEO TITLE
Note: This article has received constant attention since being published in May 2010. I am reissuing it here in the event some new readers might have missed it.What’s in a Name? Benefits of the President/CEO TitleInsights into Nonprofit Governance and Nonprofit ManagementBY EUGENE FRAM Over the last 100 years, senior managers of nonprofits typically have held the executive director title. For about the last 30 years, many nonprofits have changed the title to president/CEO, following a common business practice. Many more nonprofits need to consider the same change to obtain some subtle but useful organizational benefits. A recent study reports that only 22 percent of trade association chief staff officers hold the president/CEO title. For professional societies, the proportion is only 9 percent.1 Many chief staff officers in larger faith-based human service and health-related organizations still hold the executive director title. Even the senior manager of Carnegie Hall in New York City still carries the executive director title. A wide range of nonprofits use the executive director title: churches, human service agencies, trade associations, and medical facilities. An executive director can be the only manager in a church with an annual budget of $200,000, or be the head of a medical facility with a $10 million annual budget and 200 employees. These significant differences in responsibility levels can serve to:
The Executive Director in Nonprofit OrganizationsNonprofit senior mangers are called, “executive director instead of chief executive officer in order to avoid the business connotation which the latter name evokes. … It also distinguishes them from … members of the (volunteer) board of directors from non-executive directors who are not actively involved in running the corporation.”2 Using the title of executive director made sense during the early part of the 20th century when nonprofit organizations were modest ones with a handful of employees, and volunteers regularly filled managerial or service roles. As late as the 1960s, one occasionally witnessed volunteer board members having internal operational roles. Those who advocate for the continued use of the executive director title argue that use of the title is empirical evidence of board involvement in the activities of the organization. However, the negative side of the argument is that continued use of the title leads to board micromanagement of operations, which stunts organizational growth. Nonprofit organizations became larger and more complex in the latter part of the 20th century. Local professional societies became regional organizations; hospitals became regional healthcare systems; and so on. The proportion of volunteers involved in management operations and staff work declined. Consequently the trend to use the president/CEO title became more appealing to focus operational responsibility on management and staff. If properly structured, the title requires the chair and CEO to develop a more trusting professional relationship and assures the stakeholders of higher levels of performance. Organization results become focused on outcomes, not process. The President/CEO in Nonprofit OrganizationsIn the latter part of the 20th century, business organizations began to add the title of CEO to the title of either their president position or board chair position.3 The objective was to clearly designate which of the two had final operational authority, except for those actions which are reserved by the firm’s bylaws for the board (usually acquisitions, pension plans, and long term contracts). In the business environment, as contrasted to the nonprofit environment, both the chair and the president can be corporation employees.
About 1980, nonprofit organizations began to mirror business organizations managerially. Many developed marketing departments, installed complex information technology, and a few even hired experienced business executives to head their organizations. The older philosophy, listed above, of “avoiding the businesses connection” was quickly being eroded. Today, specialized programs operated by many associations prepare aspiring nonprofit executives to advance through managerial positions to presidential positions. Nonprofit boards, after 1980, when hiring new senior managers, offered titles of president/CEO4 and made bylaw provisions for other persons in the senior management teams to become vice presidents. Nearly three decades have passed since the early adopters made the first changes. Yet, as indicated before, there are still thousands of complex nonprofits operationally headed by managers holding the executive director title, although these persons may have robust and complex operational duties. Changing the title of the chief staff officer to president/CEO can positively influence:
Perceptions of the OrganizationThere appears to be little public understanding of the robust responsibilities of an executive director of larger nonprofits, although a board may have delegated him or her full operational authority. Most persons holding the title can relate stories of how frequently they have had to describe their jobs to persons not familiar with nonprofits. On the other hand, a substantial portion of the population recognizes that a person holding the title of president/CEO is the head of the organization with substantial authority to lead its employees and to direct operations. (Nonprofit senior managers are not the only ones who face this issue. Persons in legal firms with titles of managing partner and those in financial organizations with titles of managing director also face the same title recognition challenges.)
A nonprofit operating head with a president/CEO title can more easily help focus on building the public brand image of the organization through his or her force of personality and the clear perception of who is leading the organization’s mission. She or he should be in the best position to staff the “bully pulpit” for the mission of the organization. Staff discipline and morale may also be compromised when the executive director title is employed. In local- or regionally-based nonprofit groups, staff members often are personal friends of their board members. It is not unusual to have disaffected staff personnel directly complain to the board when they disagree with one or more of management’s operational or human resource decision.5 It can be hypothesized that some of these cases may have their roots in a lack of understanding of the role of the executive director and who has final operational authority in the organization. Also, the senior manager from time to time may have opportunities to be interviewed by the media. This can be a critical responsibility when a rapid response to a crisis is needed or an unusual public relations opportunity arises. Consequently, the president/CEO title enables him or her to move quickly and authoritatively; there is no ambiguity related to the leader’s authority. How leaders and organizations are perceived by stakeholders are realities with which leaders must deal, whether or not the perceptions are accurate. Providing the chief staff officer with the president/CEO title can help develop more desirable internal and external perceptions of the strength of an organization and the responsibilities of the person leading it. Organization CultureOrganizations which make the title change quite often do so in connection with developing a structure that brings more formality and managerial professionalism to the culture. In the past, years of volunteer involvement in operations often developed a more family culture which is a positive force when the nonprofit is in its early stages. But it is hard to maintain a family environment as the number of employees grows. A new formality, brought about with the senior manger’s title change along with a group of former managers now titled vice presidents, may be seen by older members of the staff as making the operation “uncaring” towards staff and clients. As time progresses, with the president/CEO being the communications nexus between the board and staff, there will be less personal contact between the two groups This requires the CEO to be concerned that a mistrusting atmosphere may develop. Under his or her guidance, contact between the board and staff can take place on ad hoc committees, on strategic planning projects, at various board orientations, and at organization celebrations. In these ways, the board can seek the participation and advice of all staff in establishing the major programs involved with missions, visions, and values. If managed properly, the change in top titles and the greater formality it can bring may raise some trust issues with older staff.6 However, management needs to convey a message to the staff that the change is a result of the board placing more trust for operations in the hands of management and staff. Financial GrowthSome nonprofits take the position that fund development is the responsibility of the board, since board members have the broadest range of community and other outside contacts. With a president/CEO in the top management position, fund development becomes the joint responsibility of the president/CEO, the development person—if one is employed—and board members capable of fundraising. The new title gives the senior manager the immediate recognition necessary to credibly approach donors and, with the consent of the board, to make commitments on behalf of the organization. To involve the board more directly, the president/CEO can work collaboratively with board members to develop contacts opened by the board. (As one nonprofit executive person explained the situation, “Top people readily communicate with persons in similar positions.”) In seeking support funds, the new title can open doors and communications that might not be available to one holding an executive director title because the title conveys such an unspecified range of responsibility. It might, per se, even raise an unarticulated question in the minds of some donors as to why the person has not been given the title of president/CEO to clearly demonstrate his or her operating authority. Summary and Final ThoughtsCompared to the duties of a president/CEO, the duties of an executive director range much more widely on a management activity scale. Some executive directors are simply clericals while others are sophisticated senior executives. Any organization that ignores this fact can leave a psychological gap in public perceptions relating to the group’s strategic posture and the senior manager as a substantial leader. Where warranted by higher responsibility levels, changing a senior manager’s title to president/CEO can help present a better public posture for the senior executive and a better strategic posture for an organization. ENDNOTES: 1. Mark Alcorn, “Evolving Titles for Association Executives,” Articles & Whitepapers, ASAE, September 2006. 2. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_director. Non-executive directors are volunteers who mentor or advise an operating division within the nonprofit, such as the development office. 3. In the nonprofit corporation, the board chair is usually an unpaid volunteer who also might hold the CEO title, indicating that person has final operational authority. 4. Eugene Fram, “Changing Expectations for Third Sector Executives,” Human Resource Management, Fall 1980, pp. 8-15. Eugene Fram with Vicki Brown, Policy vs. Paper Clips: Selling the corporate model to your nonprofit board, 1988. 1st edition, 1995, 2nd edition, Families International, Milwaukee. 5. This action is often called an “end run” by nonprofit managers. 6. This also assumes that those directly reporting to the president/CEO are concurrently given vice president titles.
|
NONPROFIT BOARD RELATIONSHIPS – HOW IS TRUST DEVELOPED BETWEEN THE BOARD CHAIR AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
How is trust developed between the board chair and the chief executive?
By Eugene Fram
First, in order to maintain trust between the board chair and CEO, the chair must be certain that the evaluation of the organization and the performance evaluation of the CEO are inclusive, i.e., cover a balance of the most relevant outcomes. Otherwise, the evaluation outcomes have the potential to damage the trust relationship that’s necessary to drive organizational growth. If the evaluation has a negative tone to it, and the CEO is being given time to improve performance, the chair needs to take steps to reduce unproductive tensions until the CEO’s performance improves – or, alternatively, there’s a decision made that it is time to change the CEO.
Second, is the problematic situation where the chemistry between the board chair and the CEO isn’t good. Let’s say the CEO is politically liberal and the chair is very conservative. In cases like these, boards often have trouble maintaining civil discourse at meetings. The CEO needs to be strong enough to have a frank talk with the board chair to get the situation back on track. Some sense of “balance” is required.
Third, an essential ingredient in the board culture is the CEO’s ability to be flexible. He or she needs to accommodate to a new boss every year or two. Consequently, the CEO can’t be complacent. He or she needs to be alert, to recognize when the board – often initiated by the chair – wants to move in a new direction.
Source: Policy vs. Paper Clips Third Edition, 2011, pp. 156-157.
NONPROFIT BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES: SHOULD THE CEO FOLLOW OR LEAD THE BOARD IN FUND-RAISING?
Who in a nonprofit organization is responsible for fund-raising? Should the CEO follow or lead the board?
By Eugene Fram
The CEO is the advance guard when it comes to fund-raising. First and foremost, he/she has to be alert to all places where the CEO can raise funds on his/her own initiative. This involves everything from developing grant requests to understanding about national and local sources that may support the organization’s goals. Hopefully, there is at least some part-time staff to assist the CEO.
The CEO’s next responsibility is to work closely with board directors who have development backgrounds, skills, contacts and the interest to expand the efforts to attract resources from a wider range of organizations and individuals. This is usually a small group. Although some directors may be affluent and may make substantial contributions to the organization themselves, they may hesitate to become involved in the organization’s development effort.
Here is an example:
A nonprofit group identified a community need that fell within its mission and designed a program that would assist the specific population in need. The program was taken to the board, which agreed to move ahead with it, after substantial discussion. Several board directors were requested to assist the CEO in opening doors or in making calls. Some board members volunteered to make their own calls, but in other situations, the CEO and a director made joint calls.
Here is a simple analogy in regard to fund-raising:
When it comes to raising funds, consider the CEO the forward scout looking for potential sources of funds. The board – the cavalry – is called to support that efort and broaden the base of support. In other words, the scout give the signal, but the cavalry is needed to take the objective.
Source: Policy vs. Paper Clips- Third Edition, 2011, pp. 164-166.
NONPROFIT BOARD RELATIONSHIPS – CAN A BOARD MEMBER EVER HOLD A STAFF POSITION IN THE SAME NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION?
Can a board member ever hold a staff position in the same nonprofit organization?
By Eugene Fram
Sometimes a board member acts not as a director but as a different kind of volunteer. For example, Director Z has a particular accounting skill and wants to utilize it to help the nonprofit. The CEO agrees.
In this instance the board member is not a board member, but a volunteer working under the direction of the CEO. This distinction is easy to understand if you think about the example of a Boy Scout leader who also serves as a board member on a Boy Scout regional council. As scoutmaster, he follows scouting guidelines and directives provided by the organization’s professionals. As a council director, he helps to set policy for the Scout movement in the geographic area. In only one instance does he act as a director.
Whether or not he/she should receive a payment for the work is subject to various state law nonprofit laws and approval of the board.
Source: Policy vs. Paper Clips, Third Edition, 2011, pp.231-232.
NONPROFIT BOARD RELATIONSHIPS – HOW DOES A CEO DECLINE BOARD ADVICE?
How does a president/CEO turn down advice about operations or internal structure from the board.
by Eugene Fram
With difficulty. It all depends on the type of culture that has been established by the board. Ideally, the president/CEO should be comfortable saying, “Thank you for your suggestions. I have considered them, but I feel these matters should be handled differently.” For example, on one board on which I served, the board wanted the president/CEO to employ a COO because the CEO traveled extensively and many board members felt he needed more internal help. The CEO was an entrepreneurial type who conscientiously felt that the budget approved by he and the board precluded employing a COO. It took about four years to motivate him to make this internal change. It turned out to be a highly successful one. In this case, a culture of mutual trust was present so that the board accepted his rationale for such a long time period.
Source: Eugene Fram with Vicki Brown, Policy vs. Paper Clips, Third Edition, 2011, pp. 226-227.
See Also:Eugene Fram, “The Special Relationship Nurturing the CEO-Board Chair Bond,” Nonprofit World, November/December 2011, pp.8-9.
Eugene Fram, “What’s in a Name? Benefits of the President/CEO Title,” Nonprofit Director, Alliance for Children & Families website, May 24 2010.
NONPROFIT BOARD RELATIONSHIPS – LIMITS ON PRESIDENT/CEO’s FISCAL DISCRETION
Do boards set a dollar limit on the president/CEO’s fiscal discretion?
The chief executive should have complete discretion as long as he or she works within the budget and budgetary guidelines. However, if any major changes are needed, the board must approve them. For example, if the president/CEO finds resources budgeted for capital improvements are not needed, he or she cannot simply move these funds to the salary account without board approval.
Many organizations need to borrow money on a short-term basis to meet cash-flow requirements. The CEO needs to have complete discretion to act quickly in such situations. Consequently, the board needs to pass a formal resolution authorizing a fiscal limit for bank borrowing. In practice, this limit is typically dependent upon the needs of the organization and the level of confidence the board has in the CEO.
Source: Eugene Fram with Vicki Brown, Policy vs. Paper Clips, Third Edition, 2011, pp. 225-226.
See also: Eugene Fram & Bruce Oliver, Want to Avoid Fraud? Look to Your Board, Nonprofit World, September/October 2010, pp. 18-19.
NONPROFIT CEO-BOARD CHAIR RELATIONSHIPS
The Special Relationship:
Nurturing the CEO-Board Chair Bond
By Eugene Fram
Here are tips to assure the best possible partnership between the board chair and CEO.
Keeping boards focused on strategic issues is a major challenge for nonprofit leaders. One problem is that non- profit CEOs are leaving their jobs in droves, partly because they’re reaching retirement age and partly due to the increased stresses of the position.1 This leadership crisis is intensified by the fact that board chairs tend to have short terms (according to Board Source, 83% stay in office only one or two years).
Thus, nonprofit CEOs and board chairs need to bond quickly. For the good of the organization, they must come together swiftly and create a partnership that works. Here are golden rules for the CEO and board chair to follow:
1. Be sure the CEO and board chair share strategic issues with each other—negative as well as pos- itive ones. A failure by either the chair or CEO to share information, such as a tightening of their bank’s credit policy, can have serious fiscal consequences.
2. It’s useful for the CEO to conduct orientation sessions with a new chair, explaining the challenges facing the nonprofit. The CEO can help the chair keep the board focused on strategic issues, whether they’re programmatic or financial.
3. Make sure staff know who has the final say. Some employees mistakenly view the board chair as the ultimate authority, even when the organizational table lists the CEO as holding that position. As a result, they may try an end run around the CEO, asking the board to overturn the CEO’s decision about salaries, promotions, or programs, for example. Both the CEO and board chair must emphasize the fact that the CEO is the final authority. If they make this message clear enough, they can probably keep staff from attempting any end runs. If an end run still occurs, the board chair must refer the issue to the CEO for resolution.
4. The CEO should arrange for individual board members to meet with management staff now and then so that the board can gather information about how the organization is operated. The Sarbanes-Oxley act (a federal statute relating to public corporation boards) recommends this strategy for corporate boards, and it’s also a good process for nonprofit directors.2
5. Give staff members opportunities to participate in strategic planning and to support board committees. The board chair and CEO should work together to arrange such board-staff interactions, including joint celebrations of organizational success.
6. The CEO and board chair need to agree on the use of ad hoc board committees and their relationship to standing committees. For example, should the personnel committee be a standing one or only an ad hoc one to address major personnel policies?
7. The board chair and CEO should be the active leaders in fundraising efforts, with the CEO as ad- ministrative leader. The board chair and other board members must provide the CEO entrée to funding sources. They often need to accompany the CEO on fundraising visits. The CEO should keep the board chair informed of all entrepreneurial development activities being explored.
8. The board has only one major employment decision to make – to recruit and hire the CEO. It’s usu- ally a long and exhausting process. But once it’s completed, the employment of all other staff personnel is the responsibility of the CEO and the CEO’s management team. For senior positions, most CEOs ask their chairs and a few other board members to meet with senior candidates, but the ultimate responsibility remains with the CEO.
9. When hiring a CEO, or soon after employment, the board chair and CEO must face a stark reality—the need for emergency leadership should the CEO become temporarily incapacitated. These plans can either be established informally by the chair-CEO partnership or more formally via board resolution. The following are possible interim CEOs: a senior manager in the organization, a semi-re- tired experienced CEO living near headquarters, a consultant living in a neighboring city. CEO succession planning is an important issue for the partnership should the CEO decide to leave or retire.
10. The CEO can be helpful to the board chair in recruiting new board members by suggesting possible volunteer candidates or other contacts who have demonstrated an interest in the organization’s mission, vision, and values. Board candidates will want to meet with the CEO as part of the interview process. As a result, the two partners must agree on how to present the organization to board candidates.
11. The chair and CEO need to lead in establishing meeting agendas. The two partners must work together to assure there’s sufficient meeting time to discuss and resolve strategic issues.
Eugene H. Fram (eugenefram@yahoo.com) is professor emeritus of the E. Philip Saunders College of Business, Rochester Institute of Technology, living in Los Altos, California, and author of the recently published third edition of Policy vs. Paper Clips: How Using the Corporate Model Makes a Nonprofit More Efficient and Effective (available at Amazon.com).
1While many nonprofits call their top exec the “executive director,” the term CEO or president/CEO is a more leader-focused title and will be used in this article. See: Eugene Fram’s “What’s in a Name? Benefits of the President/CEO Title,” Alliance E-News, Alliance for Children & Families, May 25, 2010.
2Most of the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations, while not mandated for nonprofits, make good governance sense. See “The Sarbanes-Oxley Act & Nonprofits: But I Thought That Didn’t Apply to Us,” Nonprofit World, Vol. 22, No. 5.
Working Together
Use the following guidelines to solidify the chair-CEO partnership, create a high-impact board, and empower your organization to be the best it can be:
-
Avoid providing the board with surprise information.
-
Schedule orientation sessions for the board and CEO whenever there are changes in either the CEO or board positions.
-
Clarify reporting channels when board members work on staff projects.
-
Make certain that board and staff personnel work together on strategic plans.
-
Create a board team to support fund development that’s CEO-driven.
-
Recognize that the CEO is responsible for recruiting and evaluating staff.
-
Note the value of the CEO in recruiting board members.
-
Develop temporary leadership plans should the CEO be incapacitated.
-
Work together to have effective board meetings.
-
Recognize that board members have a variety of personal agendas for serving.
-
Maintain mutual trust via an inclusive CEO evaluation.
-
Most important, be sure board members focus on strategic issues.
New Professorship for Critical Thinking
Rochester Institute of Technology
RIT Alumnus Donates $3 Million to Establish Endowed Chair in Critical Thinking
Gift honors professor emeritus Eugene Fram from the E. Philip Saunders College of Business
Nov. 18, 2011
by Marcia Morphy
A Rochester Institute of Technology alumnus has donated a $3 million gift to establish The Eugene Fram Endowed Chair in Critical Thinking in RIT’s E. Philip Saunders College of Business. Fram is a renowned retail expert and marketing professor emeritus who retired from RIT in 2008 after 51 years of teaching in the Saunders College. The $3 million commitment is the second largest single gift ever received from an RIT alumnus.
“It is clear to me, as I imagine to most Americans, that many of us in America seem to lack the essential skill of critical thinking—at least in our public life,” says the donor, who prefers to remain anonymous. “My gift to RIT acknowledges my indebtedness to Dr. Fram for teaching me how to think critically, and I hope it ensures that RIT graduates genuinely appreciate the vital nature of this skill.”
According to RIT President Bill Destler, it’s a wonderful gift for the university. “This endowment not only honors one of RIT’s most distinguished faculty members, but it will ensure that future generations of RIT students graduate with the critical thinking skills that lend to success not only in their careers, but in their lives as well.”
RIT Provost Jeremy Haefner says the chair will be housed in the Saunders College but will be assigned to develop and teach courses specifically directed toward critical thinking throughout the university’s nine colleges.
“There is a sense, shared by many, that RIT is on the verge of a transformation—of leaping into the national spotlight as a great university,” Haefner says. “This gift, to create an endowed chair in critical thinking, exemplifies that. It is rare for a university, particularly one of a technical nature, to have the means to devote a prestigious position such as an endowed chair to supporting and promoting critical thinking in our students’ education.
“The person in this position will be an evangelist for critical thinking, working with faculty and students to elevate the importance of this learning outcome. I am excited to help implement this endowed chair and set a foundation that will affect our students for years to come.”
During his tenure as the J. Warren McClure Research Professor of Marketing, Fram created a legacy of retail wisdom. A tidal wave of reporters from across the U.S.—The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Associated Press, Boston Globe, Washington Post, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sacramento Bee, Money Morning and CNN.com—have used Fram’s marketing expertise. He has expounded on everything from mall space, eBay, scrapbooking, Black Friday tips and Christmas shopping frenzy to corporate governance, Enron, Wal-Mart, Kmart and Rochester fast ferry strategies.
Fram is also the author of more than 125 published articles and six books. The third edition of his nonprofit governance book, Policy vs. Paper Clips, was published earlier this year.
“I am deeply honored to have the chair established in my name,” says Fram, who was awarded the RIT Presidential Medallion during the 2008 commencement ceremony for his significant contributions to the university.
“Those who hold the professorship will significantly enhance the professional and personal lives of RIT students for many generations. Critical thinking is a mandated process for the 21st century to solve a host of business and societal problems.”
Saunders College Dean Ashok Rao says Eugene Fram exemplifies the kind of teaching for which RIT prides itself. “He connects with students inside and outside the classroom to guide them in their careers and through life. We are grateful for the generosity of the anonymous Saunders College of Business alumnus who appreciates the influence of teachers like Gene. His gift will support our efforts to continue delivering high quality education for future generations of students.”
The anonymous donor is a member of the Ellingson Society at RIT, a philanthropic endeavor that honors those alumni, parents, friends, faculty and staff who establish a planned gift for the university. The Society is named for Mark and Marcia Ellingson, respectively fifth president and first lady of RIT, who together propelled the university to a new level of national and world prominence.
Note: Rochester Institute of Technology is internationally recognized for academic leadership in computing, engineering, imaging science, sustainability, and fine and applied arts, in addition to unparalleled support services for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. RIT enrolls 17,500 full- and part-time students in more than 200 career-oriented and professional programs, and its cooperative education program is one of the oldest and largest in the nation.
For more than two decades, U.S. News & World Report has ranked RIT among the nation’s leading comprehensive universities. RIT is featured in The Princeton Review’s 2012 edition of The Best 376 Colleges as well as its Guide to 311 Green Colleges. The Fiske Guide to Colleges 2012 names RIT as a “Best Buy,” and The Chronicle of Higher Education recognizes RIT among the “Great Colleges to Work For 2011.”
Copyright © Rochester Institute of Technology
All Rights Reserved | Disclaimer | Copyright Infringement
One Lomb Memorial Drive, Rochester, NY 14623-5603
Questions or comments? Send us feedback. Telephone: 585-475-2411
