Buidling personal relationships

Reversing Traditional Nonprofit Board Barriers

Reversing Traditional Nonprofit Board Barriers

By: Eugene Fram         

Clearly the purpose of a nonprofit board is to serve the constituency that establishes it—be it community, industry, governmental unit and the like. That said, the “how” to best deliver that service is often not so clear. An executive committee, for example, can overstep its authority by assuming powers beyond its scope of responsibility. I encountered this in one executive committee when the group developed a strategic plan in an interim period where there was no permanent ED. The board then refused to share it with the incoming executive. In another instance, an executive committee took it upon itself to appoint members of the audit committee—including outsiders who were unknown to the majority on the board.

The fuzziness of boundaries and lack of defined authority call for an active nonprofit system of checks and balances. For a variety of reasons this is difficult for nonprofits to achieve:

  • A typical nonprofit board member is often recruited from a pool of friends, relatives and colleagues, and will serve, on a median average, for four to six years.   This makes it difficult to achieve rigorous debate at meetings (why risk conflicts with board colleagues?). Directors also are not as eager to thoughtfully plan for change beyond the limits of their terms. Besides discussing day-to-day issues, the board needs to make sure that immediate gains do not hamper long-term sustainability.
  • The culture of micromanagement is frequently a remnant from the early startup years when board members may have performed operational duties. In some boards it becomes embedded in the culture and continues to pervade the governmental environment, allowing the board and executive committee to involve themselves in areas that should be delegated to management.
  • The executive team is a broad partnership of peers –board members, those appointed to the executive committee and the CEO. The executive committee is legally responsible to act for the board between meetings–the board must ratify its decisions. But unchecked, the executive committee can assume dictatorial powers whose conclusions must be rubber-stamped by the board.

Mitigating Oversight Barriers: There is often little individual board members can do to change the course when the DNA has become embedded in the organization. The tradition of micromanagement, for example, is hard to reverse, especially when the culture is continually supported by a succession of like-minded board chairs and CEOs. No single board member can move these barriers given the brevity of the board terms. But there are a few initiatives that three or four directors, working in tandem, can take to move the organization into a high-performance category.

  • Meetings: At the top of every meeting agenda there needs to be listed at least one policy or strategy topic. When the board discussion begins to wander, the chair should remind the group that they are encroaching on an area that is management’s responsibility. One board I observed wasted an hour’s time because the chair had failed to intercept the conversation in this manner. Another board agreed to change its timing of a major development event, then spent valuable meeting time suggesting formats for the new event—clearly a management responsibility to develop.
  • “New Age” Board Members: While millennial directors may be causing consternation in some legacy-bound nonprofit and business organizations, certain changes in nonprofits are noteworthy. Those board members in the 43- and- under age bracket need some targeted nurturing. I encountered a new young person who energized the board with her eagerness to try to innovative development approaches. She was subsequently appointed to the executive committee, deepening her view of the organization and primed her for board chair leadership.

Board members who understand the robust responsibilities of a 21st century board need to accept responsibilities for mentoring these new age board people, despite their addictions to electronic devices.

  • Experienced Board Members: Board members who have served on other high-performance boards have the advantage of being familiar with modern governance processes and are comfortable in supporting change. They are needed to help boards, executive committees and CEOs to move beyond the comfortable bounds of the past. They will be difficult to recruit, but they are required ingredients for successful boards.
  • NEW Projects: Boards and the CEO must be bold and try new approaches to meet client needs. For example instead of going through a complete planning process for a new program the board must ask management to complete a series of small experiments to test the program. When a series of results are positive, the nonprofit can work on a plan to implement the program.

Conclusion: Individual board members working alone will probably become frustrated in trying to contend with the three overview barriers discussed. But working with three or four colleagues, over time, on a tandem basis, they can make inroads on the barriers. Meetings can become more focused on policies/strategies, new age board members can become more quickly productive, experienced board members can become role models and new programs and other projects can be more quickly imitated via the use of small scale experiments.

CEOs Need To Develop Partnering Relationships With Board Members

By Eugene Fram              

When a CEO publicly introduces a board member as “my boss,” (as I have overheard more than once) there is a problem. It’s true that both parties—CEO and board member—have specific roles in the success of a nonprofit organization. But the hierarchy of authority should be deemphasized when it comes to interpersonal connections. The most effective mindset for CEO and board members is to view each other as partners in working to achieve the organization’s mission and their impacts.

The CEO’s efforts to cultivate such relationships are key. The following are some initiatives that he/she can utilize: *

• Partners need to know each other as individuals: With overcrowded meeting agendas, rambling debates and hurried exits, there is often not enough time to know the person’s name who sits next to you, let alone anything about his life outside the boardroom. Even off-site meetings for informal exchange are hard to schedule and poorly attended. This lack of human connection is a real deficit in internal board relationships. The CEO can help in a number of ways.

1. Take a few minutes at the beginning or end of the meeting to allow board members, if they choose, to report something new or important in their personal or professional lives.
2. The CEO and/or board members should try to meet with individual board members or small groups to suggest new or unique ideas for improvement within the organization. Show professional regard for their responses even if it is not actionable.
3. Create social occasions by inviting board members and their significant others to participate informally. Or ask some board members to plan gatherings that could be as casual as afternoon wine and cheese or self paid dinners out together.

• Connect partner directors to the CEO’s real work: Since most nonprofit board members’ full-time interests and professions are not directly related to the organization’s mission, it’s important for CEOs to educate board members more deeply about what goes on routinely to achieve the mission, especially in those areas (e.g. human resources) in which the decision-making information is quite ambiguous.

For partner board members wanting deeper organization knowledge, the CEO needs to invite them to accompany him/h to local, regional or national professional meetings. Not only do these offer professional benefits, such as understanding accrediting processes, but it also offers the CEO an opportunity to solidify partnerships. Example: As a young faculty person at a university, the senior VP of Finance occasionally would invite me to accompany him to professional meetings. He would use travel time to orient me on macro issues facing the university.

• Energize board meetings: In recent years business meetings have been described as “death by power point.” Many presentations ranges from 20 to 30 power point cells when 8-10 can highlight the story. There are many actions the CEO, with the concurrence of the board chair, can take to develop these into partnership relations.
1. Keep minutiae off the agenda. If it crops up because a few directors find a small topic of tangential interest, the chair has a leadership obligation to take action by saying, “How does the X issue contribute directly to achieving our mission? Let’s set up a process where those interested in this issue can discuss it after the meeting.”
2. Place the boilerplate topics at the end of the meeting.
3. Staff reports on their operations are necessary at every other board meeting. While the CEO has an obligation to make certain they are brief and well presented, the chair has to make certain that board member questions are precise so that the staff person can stay within allotted time.
4. Use a “consent agenda” process for items about which there appears to be substantial agreement.
5. Make certain that every new chair is reasonably familiar with Robert’s Rules of Order to encourage civil discussion and conduct an orderly meeting process. It also can be helpful to appoint a parliamentarian should the rule-book need interpretation.
6. Focus on action items. “Send board members out the door with a clear idea of what they need to do between now and the next board meeting”** (and with the feeling that he/s has met with a group of high energy partners.)

• Meaningful Work: As much as possible, the CEO, with the board chair, has to make certain that every director views his/h efforts as meaningful to achieving the mission: Example: A CEO devoted an entire meeting to reviewing a powerpoint presentation he was planning to make. This was the final straw for a board member, who felt his time was being squandered. He immediately resigned his position with the usual excuse of increased work responsibilities.

A Leadership Challenge: Bonding with the board and encouraging board member connections is a tall order for a CEO with full operational responsibilities. As board members’ terms expire and new people step up to the plate, the challenge to build relationships is continuous. Even some termed-out board members need meaningful contact and must be kept interested and invested in the nonprofit’s development. The CEO, with the strong support of the board chair, should provide leadership in these important tasks—it will help the organization to move forward while maximizing the benefits to its clients.

*http://boardassist.org/blog/bored-blazing-7-steps-get-board-reconnected-re-engaged-enth

**Ibid

How A Nonprofit Board Member Can Initiate Positive Change

How A Nonprofit Board Member Can Initiate Positive Change 

By: Eugene Fram             

A nonprofit board member comes up with an idea that he thinks will do wonders for the organization. He is convinced that establishing a for-profit subsidiary will not only be compatible with the group’s mission but may even bring in new sources of revenue. It’s his ball–now what’s the best route to run with it? All too often in the nonprofit environment, initiating change can be as daunting as trying to get consensus in the US Congress! There are, however, certain interpersonal levers, which, if pushed, can accelerate the process–although one hopes that not all the levers will be needed in any specific situation.

  • Board Colleagues – Quietly enlist as many board colleagues as possible to support the idea.  Enlisting support from board opinion leaders is critical — then open up the discussion to others in informal conversations. Premature presentation to the entire board could stall the process.
  • The CEO – Either before or during conversations with board colleagues, be certain to review the proposed change with the CEO.  He/S will voice acceptance, rejection, or asks to consider it.  If s/he is opposed to the change, the board member only has these alternatives – wait until a new CEO is engaged; seek board termination of the CEO that is generally not a good move; or wait for better timing and board support.  It is foolhardy to seek the change in face of the full opposition of the CEO. If the CEO will support the change, it may be a good idea for the board member to step back and make the CEO the leading change agent.
  • Revenues – No matter how good the change, implementation will likely require financing beyond current budget allocations.   Consequently, a plan for fund  development from foundations and individuals will be needed for the final proposal.
  • Other Organizations—Other organizations with similar situations could serve as useful models. An on-site visit will provide information and enable the nonprofit to develop benchmarks that will reassure those that remain skeptical.
  • Measurement–Establish measurement metrics before the change is launched.  Do not hesitate to use imperfect metrics to track progress and drive change during the development period.  (http://bit.ly/OvF4ri)

Nonprofit board members have relatively short tenures—typically four to six years or less– and are often regarded as temporary overseers. There are opportunities to be much more than that if the board operates in a 21st century generative manner. The board climate should be open to ideas of positive change, and the creative board member must appropriately adapt or adopt the above levers to ensure effective acceptance and implementation

Can a 9-Year Tenure Promote Nonprofit Board Member Effectiveness?

Can a 9-Year Tenure Promote Nonprofit Board Member Effectiveness?

Having served on two nonprofit boards for a period of ten consecutive years, I was interested to read a study of the optimal tenure for business board directors. * The business study found that a board member’s effectiveness peaked at nine years, after which it falls off.* If a parallel study were to be run with nonprofits, what conclusions might be drawn given that the usual nonprofit board tenure is two three-year terms? What, if any, might be the impact on nonprofits by extending a board member’s term of office? Although there are differences in their missions, nonprofit and for-profit boards should be able learn from each other., As a result, it is fair to ask, what impact would the study’s data have if applied to a nonprofit?

As might be expected, in the for-profit environment as in the nonprofit environment, one size did not fit all in the study results. Those firms that had complex operations required a longer learning time curve for new directors, and the optimal time was 11 years for maximum director effectiveness. This contrasts with about seven years if the directors required greater monitoring efforts. If nonprofits were to follow these conclusions, it suggests that the traditional two three-year director terms are desirable for start-ups but not for those nonprofit boards that have matured.

Another overall conclusion was that high average board tenure did not impact the board’s ability to attract new directors, whether they are high performing or poorly performing firms. In other words, those boards with high tenure boards records would have little problems attracting new directors.

To replicate this study in the nonprofit environment would be difficult because the stock performance measures used by the for-profit researcher are not appropriate. Consequently, highly creative, well-accepted measures would need to be developed. The study does raises some questions that nonprofits need to ponder:

• What are the core characteristics of nonprofit board membersby which to judge effectiveness? How can they be defined and how can they be measured?
• Is a board with a large group of long tenured members a detriment to nonprofit progress, as commonly believed, or a board with human resource experiences to be admired?
• Should nonprofits experiment with offering directors three three-year terms, renewable each in three-year increments? After all it is not unusual to encounter nonprofit directors who have served for 10 or more years, by using some “escape clauses,” in the bylaws such as the member first filling an unexpired term of another member or a director after six years being able to stay on as board chair for another two years plus an additional year as past board chair.

*Ben Haimowitz (2013) “Why 9 Years is a Lucky Number for Board Director Tenure and Effectiveness,” CEO Briefing Newsletter, September 13th. Please note that tenure can be significant problem in the for-profit arena. Some boards can have several directors with 50 year of voting tenure
See: Richard LeBlanc (2013) “How Long Should a Board Director Serve?” Huffington Post, September 19th.

Moving Toward a High Performance NonProfit

By Eugene Fram

Clearly the purpose of a nonprofit board is to serve the constituency that establishes it—be it community, industry, governmental unit and the like. That said, the “how” to best deliver that service is often not so clear. An executive committee, for example, can overstep its authority by assuming powers beyond its scope of responsibility. I encountered this in one executive committee when the group developed a strategic plan in an interim period where there was no permanent ED. The board then refused to share it with the incoming executive. In another instance, an executive committee took it upon itself to appoint members of the audit committee—including outsiders who were unknown to the majority on the board.

The fuzziness of boundaries and lack of defined authority call for an active nonprofit system of checks and balances. For a variety of reasons this is difficult for nonprofits to achieve:

  • A typical nonprofit board member is often recruited from a pool of friends, relatives and colleagues, and will serve, on a median average, for four to six years.   This makes it difficult to achieve rigorous debate at meetings (why risk conflicts with board colleagues?). Directors also are not as eager to thoughtfully plan for change beyond the limits of their terms. Besides discussing day-to-day issues, the board needs to make sure that immediate gains do not hamper long-term sustainability.
  • The culture of micromanagement is frequently a remnant from the early startup years when board members may have performed operational duties. In some boards it becomes embedded in the culture and continues to pervade the governmental environment, allowing the board and executive committee to involve themselves in areas that should be delegated to management.
  • The executive team is a broad partnership of peers –board members, those appointed to the executive committee and the CEO. The executive committee is legally responsible to act for the board between meetings–the board must ratify its decisions. But unchecked, the executive committee can assume dictatorial powers whose conclusions must be rubber-stamped by the board.

Breaking the Cycle:

There is often little individual board members can do to change the course when the DNA has become embedded in the organization. The tradition of micromanagement, for example, is hard to reverse, especially when the culture is continually supported by a succession of like-minded board chairs and CEOs. No single board member can move these barriers given the brevity of the board terms. But there are a few initiatives that three or four directors, working in tandem, can take to move the organization into a high-performance category.

  • Meetings: At the top of every meeting agenda there needs to be listed at least one policy or strategy topic. When the board discussion begins to wander, the chair should remind the group that they are encroaching on an area that is management’s responsibility. One board I observed wasted an hour’s time because the chair had failed to intercept the conversation in this manner. Another board agreed to change its timing of a major development event, then spent valuable meeting time suggesting formats for the new event—clearly a management responsibility to develop.
  • “New Age” Board Members: While millennial directors may be causing consternation in some legacy-bound nonprofit and business organizations, certain changes in nonprofits are noteworthy. Those board members in the 43- and- under age bracket need some targeted nurturing. I encountered a new young person who energized the board with her eagerness to try to innovative development approaches. She was subsequently appointed to the executive committee, deepening her view of the organization and primed her for board chair leadership.

Board members who understand the robust responsibilities of a 21st century board need to accept responsibilities for mentoring these new age board people, despite their addictions to electronic devices.

  • Experienced Board Members: Board members who have served on other high-performance nonprofit or for-profit boards have the advantage of being familiar with modern governance processes and are comfortable in supporting change. They are needed to help boards, executive committees and CEOs to move beyond the comfortable bounds of the past. They will be difficult to recruit, but they are required ingredients for successful boards.
  • NEW Projects: Boards and the CEO must be bold and try new approaches to meet client needs. For example instead of going through a complete planning process for a new program the board must ask management to complete a series of small experiments to test the program. When a series of results are positive, the nonprofit can work on a plan to implement the program.*

Conclusion

Individual board members working alone will probably become frustrated in trying to contend with the three overview barriers discussed. But working with three or four colleagues, over time, on a tandem basis, they can make inroads on the barriers. Meetings can become more focused on policies/strategies, new age board members can become more quickly productive, experienced board members can become role models and new programs and other projects can be more quickly imitated via the use of small scale experiments.

*https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesnonprofitcouncil/2023/09/14/lean-mean-nonprofit-machine-an-intro-

Is Your Nonprofit Recruiting & Retaining by Using a Mission-Driven Approach?
Is Your Nonprofit Recruiting & Retaining by Using a Mission-Driven Approach?

By: Eugene Fram     

Recruiting and retaining able people for nonprofit careers has always been a challenge.  Salary levels have not been comparable to business organizations and some government posts. Many small and medium sized nonprofits have frontline personnel organizationally located only two levels below the Board of Directors.  Consequently, career paths can appear stymied.

The employment situation has changed for two population cohorts.  They are: some millennials (born between 1981 and 1996) and those in the Generation Z cohort (born between 1997 and 2012).

(more…)

OnceAgain! How Can Nonprofit Boards Support Management & Staff and Refrain From Micromanaging?

Once Again! How Can Nonprofit Boards Support Management & Staff and Refrain From Micromanaging?

By: Eugene Fram                    

The dilemma is common to nonprofit organizations. As start-ups, everyone aspires to do everything. Passion for the mission and determination to “get it right” imbue board members with the desire to do it all. But once the organization starts to mature, board roles shift to focus more broadly on policy and strategy issues. With the advent of qualified personnel to handle operations, there are many overview activities, sans micromanaging, available to board members. Following are some ways that boards can assist and demonstrate support for operations, CEOs and staffs without interfering.

    • Respect Management & Staff: The Board needs to accept the CEO as professional manager, not as a person dedicated to a field specialty—police officer, physician, attorney, etc.—with part-time management efforts. * He/s should know how to hire well, interrelate with staff, board and other stakeholders and make certain day-to-day operations are effective and efficient. It is possible, however, to have a mediocre board and an effective management and staff that is devoted to the nonprofit’s mission. Hopefully, a few board members recognize the situation and are able to build a culture of respect for the management and staff, often a difficult task when the board is micromanaging the nonprofit.
    • The Importance of Long-Term Goals: Currently nonprofits tend to plan on a three-year to five-year cycle because the environments in which they operate change so quickly. With nonprofit board members having 4-6 median terms, this suggests many will have one short-term outlooks. But, in my opinion, much longer-term planning needs to be considered, perhaps for as long as ten years. This way current planning can influence longer-term planning. This generative thinking will also provide some benchmarks for the types of abilities and skills that future CEOs will need to possess.
    • Understand Psychological & Non-Monetary Benefits: Flexible benefits are required by nonprofits to compete with business and other nonprofits paying higher wages. For example, in many areas, hospital chains compete with human service agencies for people with social-work abilities. They must also compete with businesses for computer specialists. One way is to offer flexible scheduling to all personnel needing it. Another way is for the board to formally honor staff for successes and make certain that management provides appropriate praise frequently, a requirement for millennial, and possibly generation Z age staffs.
    • Empower the CEO and staff: Boards need to be sure that the CEO is fully empowered to make tactical operating decisions without board interference. On an overview basis, the board needs to request management to ask small staff teams to work on projects that can yield tangible results. This will encourage groups and teams to become more responsible.

Within its overview responsibilities, nonprofit board members can be quite proactive in assisting management and staff when they meet routine operational challenges. The above discussions demonstrate ways this can be accomplished. Nonprofit boards can add to them to meet local challenges.

* Some growing nonprofits unfortunately elect the CEO from the staff and allow him/h to continue to have some staff responsibilities.

Are Nonprofit Boards Capable of Evaluating Themselves?

A study of business boards by Stanford University yielded the following results:

  • Only one-third (36%) of board members surveyed believe their company does a very good job of accurately assessing the performance of individual directors.
  • Almost half (46%) believe their boards tolerate dissent.
  • Nearly three quarters of directors (74%) agree that board directors allow personal or past experiences to dominate their perspective.
  • And, perhaps most significant, the typical director believes that at least one fellow director should be removed from the board because the individual is not effective. *

Given that many of these business boards have the financial power to employ legal counsel or consultants to conduct a rigorous impartial evaluation, what can a nonprofit board, with limited financial resources, do to make sure that the board and its members are being fairly evaluated to drive change?

(more…)

The “Compliant” Nonprofit Board—A CEO Takes Charge Like a Founder!

The “Compliant” Nonprofit Board—A CEO Takes Charge Like a Founder!

By Eugene Fram             

According to BoardSource, “ ‘Founderitis’ and ‘founder’s syndrome’ are terms often used to describe a founder’s resistance to change. When founderitis surfaces, the source of the dilemma often is a founder’s misunderstanding of his or her role in an evolving organization.” * I would like to suggest that a nonprofit CEO also might suffer from the “founderitis illness,” sometimes with the board only being mildly or completely unaware of it.

Board Member Tenure versus CEO

The average board member tenure is six years (e.g., two three year terms) as compared with the average almost 13-year CEO tenure. ** The CEO has twice as longer period to influence polices and strategies. More importantly, she/h has more opportunity and time to acquire background knowledge and influence the organization’s culture.

“CEO Founderitis”—Typical Board Members & CEO Behaviors

  • The board is a dependent one, cancels or reschedules major committee/board meeting when the CEO can’t attend.
  • The CEO is overly verbose in presenting background information at meetings.
  • Concurrently, the number of board member comments is limited at most meetings.
  • The CEO places limits on the types of contacts the staff can have with board members, in the name of avoiding staff “end runs. “
  • The CEO carefully covets outside relationships and donor relationships. Board members are only marginally involved in fund development.
  • The Executive Committee does not challenge the CEO when setting the agenda.
  • The nonprofit board is satisfied with marginal gains each year, without seeking broader challenges to provide enhanced client services.
  • The CEO’s performance isn’t rigorously assessed.
  • The board rarely, if ever, overviews CEO and staff talent successions.
  • Board actions and activities are not rigorously reviewed or discussed.
  • Led by the CEO, Board resistance to change is substantial.

What should the board do if the CEO takes charge like a founder?

Three Options:

Does Nothing: This assumes the CEO is performing reasonably well in developing positive program impacts, not outcomes. (i.e, Program objectives can be achieved, but they can have little impacts on clients.)

The CEO and Board are satisfied with program outcomes as performance measures. As a result, the organization inadvertently may not be innovative. In addition, long-term organizational sustainability may be compromised. There may be long-term challenges on the horizon that go beyond the typical three to five year planning cycles.

A majority of board members may feel comfortable with this option because the CEO acts strongly, even though he/s occasionally may encroach on a board’s perogrative.

Makes Changes: This will probably require the CEO & Board to change, modifying some of the behaviors listed above. The CEO then forms a partnership with a changing independent board.

Some board members will be satisfied the status quo, little is required of them. But others may want to remove a CEO who leads like a founder. Internal conflict will likely arise on both sides to delay or abort change.

A Solution? Don’t rock the boat. Only when the CEO, especially one with long tenure, suffering from “founderitis” makes a graceful exit will there be opportunity for change. Hopefully, the new CEO will develop a partnership culture with the board.

* https://boardsource.org/resources/founders-syndrome/

** See: “Average tenure of nonprofit CEO Nonprofit Times”

For-Profit Boards Versus Nonprofit Boards: Similar Challenges?

   

By: Eugene Fram  

For-Profit Boards Versux Nonprofit Boards: Similar Challenges?                               

The wise person learns from his/h own experiences. The wiser person learns from the experiences of others. Chinese Proverb

The CEO Forum published an article covering the governance views of five business board members, known for their wisdom and vision.   Following are some of topics in the article that relate to nonprofit boards. *

Good governance is dependent upon well-curated boards. This means that nonprofit boards must look beyond the functional competencies (e.g. accounting, marketing, law, etc.) for candidates. Within these groupings, they need to seek candidates who have strategic outlooks, are comfortable with critical thinking and have documented leadership skills.   This requires recruiting and vetting efforts that go well beyond the friends, neighbors and colleagues who traditionally have been the sources for board positions. Also related is the issue of board succession, since that many will leave the board after a four to six year period. The current board(s) has an obligation to make rigorous recruiting and vetting become part of the nonprofit’s culture.

Assessing long-term sustainability. In the past, nonprofits have projected longevity because there will always be a need for the services or products they provide. This is no longer an assured proposition. Nonprofit day care centers now must compete with those that are for-profit. Improvements in medication have decreased the need for individual counseling and many new technologies can quickly solve problems that are embedded in the nonprofit’s mission.

Review governance best practices carefully! Know who is suggesting them and make certain they are appropriate for a specific organization. For example, some experts suggest that executive committees should be eliminated. However an executive committee that is responsible for a slim board committee structure can be effective in driving change and promoting better communications throughout the organization. **

Changing public accounting firms. Nonprofit accounting practice suggests changing public accounting firms about every five years. However one expert suggests, “It is important to ensure that judgment areas such as nonGAAP disclosures are well-defined, supporting calculations are well-documented and that the definitions and calculations are consistent across reporting periods.” At times of accounting firm change, nonprofit board members need to be able to add these issues to their question that they pose to management.

Ethics & Compliance. Like business organizations, nonprofits are subject to significant lapses in ethics and compliance. One study of  nonprofit fraud found that it 46% involved multiple perpetrators.  ***  As shown in the recent Wells Fargo debacle, establishing the tone for rigorous applications of a standard needs to start with the board and flow through all management levels. In the current environment, audit committees have to be especially alert and take immediate actions when red flags arise in either the ethics and/or compliance areas.   In my opinion, a nonprofit audit committee that meets only once or twice a year is not doing the necessary job.

Strategy. The nonprofit board has an obligation to help management see “around the next corner.” This involves board members assessing coming trends and sparking civil and meaningful board and committee discussions.

Board member comfort zones. Like their business counterparts, few nonprofit board members are “comfortable testing how to rock the norms.” It is easier to acculturate new directors to the current norms, a process that is inward bound and self-defeating. But a start can be initiated with questions such as, “If we were to start a new nonprofit across the street, what would it look like and who of the present board and a staff members would we ask to join us?

*https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertreiss/2017/05/22/americas-five-governance-experts-share-perspective-on-boards/#2a2ee326659a   

**For documentation see: https://goo.gl/QEL8x3

***https://nonprofitquarterly.org/nonprofit-fraud-its-a-people-problem-so-combat-it-with-governance/P

\