My blogs have been drawing an unusual number of views related to dysfunctional nonprofit boards. Is it because:
Nonprofit evaluations have become a prime media interest?
Compliance regulations have forced a greater number of nonprofits to substantially review their charters?
More boards have found board problems arising as a result of reviewing the expanded 990-form section on governance?
More audit committees are being given expanded responsibilities?
Can a nonprofit organization focus on its mission vision and values if it has a dysfunctional nonprofit board? I have seen this accomplished in situations where the CEO is managerially oriented and can live with the board’s problems or foibles. For example, one nonprofit I encountered had an eleven person board, four of which never attended meetings and several others were sometimes absent for personal reasons. Meeting minutes clearly showed a focus on operational detail. However a strong CEO was able to focus well, and the organization prospered. On the other hand,the CEO openly complained that she was overworked, needed board member assistance and easily could become financially liable board, missteps.
In another situation I encountered, the board chair and ED were very strong, but the board governmentally weak. Work and family pressures constrained the time board members could devote to their governance responsibilities. While the organization performed reasonably well, performance problems and board liability issues might arise, if either the chair or ED retired or resigned.
Although not desirable station, a dedicated mission oriented staff can, at a minimum, perform reasonably well when its board may be dysfunctional. However the following conditions are needed.
Management is able to keep the staff focused on mission, vision and values.
A legacy staff person(s) becomes a mentor(s) for more recently engaged staff.
The dysfunction is relatively brief and resolved by board member rotation. If too long, organizational performance will decline.
Board members involved with the dysfunction do not seek to involve staff in their disputes.
Board Members Need to Review Unwritten Protocols to Boost Nonprofits’ Effectiveness
By: Eugene Fram
Nonprofit boards are governed by a series of obligations —some are clearly defined as legal responsibilities such as financial actions. Others, however, are less clearly defined and relate to people who are, in some way, associated with the organization. Guidelines to these diverse interactions are not typically archived in policies but are important to the overall professionalism of the board. They include consideration of its: board structure, internal operations, recruitment methods and leadership style.
In 2001 Enron Energy collapsed due to financial manipulations and a moribund board. It was the seventh-largest company in the United States. Andrew Fastow, the former CFO and architect of the manipulations served more than five years in prison for securities fraud. He offered the following comments to business board members that, in my opinion, are currently relevant to nonprofit boards. Quotations from Fastow are italicized.*
• One explanation of his downfall was he didn’t stop to ask whether the decisions he was making were ethical (moral).
Nonprofits directors and managers can find themselves in similar situations. One obvious parallel is when a conflict of interest occurs. In smaller and medium sized communities, it is wise to seek competitive bids, especially when the purchase may be awarded to a current or former board member or volunteer.
Board members and managers themselves can be at personal financial peril, via the Intermediate Sanctions Act, if they wittingly or unwittingly provide an excess salary benefit to an employee or an excess benefit to a volunteer or donor. Examples: The board allows a substantial above market salary to offer to the CEO. Also the board allows a parcel of property to be sold to a volunteer or donor at below market values.
One subtle area of decision-making morality centers on whether a board’s decision is immoral by commission or omission. Examples: In its normal course of client duties, the board allows managers to travel by first class air travel. Obviously, resources that are needed by clients are being wasted and morally indefensible. On the other hand the moral issue can come in to play, if the nonprofit is husbanding resources well beyond what is needed for an emergency reserve. The organization, in a sense, is not being all it can be in terms of client services or in seeking additional resources. Overly conservative financial planning, not unusual in nonprofit environments, can result in this latter subtle omission “moral” dilemma. Overtly, universities with billions of dollars on their balance sheets have been highlighted as having the issue, but I have occasionally noted smaller nonprofits in the same category.
• He (Fastow) said he ultimately rationalized that he was following the rules, even if he was operating in the grey zones (area).
There can be grey zones for nonprofits. Example: IRS rules require that the nonprofit board be involved in the development of the annual Form 990 report. But what does this involvement mean—a brisk overview when the report is finished, a serious discussion of the answers to the questions related to corporate governance, a record in the board minutes covering questions raised and changes suggested, etc.? A nonprofit boards needs to make a determination on which course is appropriate.
Boards implementing government-sponsored contracts can get into grey areas. Example: Some contracts require the nonprofits to follow government guidelines for travel expenses. I wonder how many nonprofit audit committees are aware of their responsibilities to make certain these guidelines are followed?
According to Fastow, a for-profit director can ask the wrong question—“Is this allowed?” A nonprofit director can make the same mistake. Instead, in my opinion, the better question for a nonprofit should be “Will this decision help the organization to prosper long after my director’s term limit?”
As Fastow did, human service boards can invite trouble if they falsely rationalize an action as being taken for client welfare, and then conclude they are following the rules.
• Mr. Fastow said one way to start changing an entrenched culture is to have either a director on the board, or a hired adviser to the board, whose role is to question and challenge decisions.
Nonprofit directors are often recruited from friends, family members and business colleagues, etc. This process creates an entrenched board.
When elected to the board, a process begins to acculturate the new person to the status quo of the board, instead making best use of the person’s talents. Example: An accountant with financial planning experience will be asked to work with the CFO on routine accounting issues, far below her/h professional level. One answer is to accept Fastow’s suggestion and to appoint a modified lead director or adviser to a nonprofit board.***
An old Chinese proverb states, “A wise man learns by his own experiences, the wiser man learns from the experiences of others. Nonprofits can learn a something from Andrew Fastow’s post conviction trecollections to hopefully help avoid significant debacles.
Like the Streisand song lyric, nonprofit people who need people must first have the know-how to choose and cultivate those people! If not, the risks to a board can range from modest to substantial. It all begins with making the right choices and vetting board and CEO candidates. Most nonprofit board members know that they are only required to make one hiring decision—the engagement of the CEO. This is a process that always involves some risk factors. Take the case of the university that has expended substantial amounts to engage a CEO. After a brief “honeymoon period” it was determined that the candidate lacked the requisite background to move the organization forward. His resignation was forthcoming, and with it, a disruption that was costly not only in dollars but in board/faculty morale and public confidence.
A nonprofit board is usually confronted with several people risks. Following are some that should be noted by board members.
Colleagues on the Board- Modest Risk: Except when a crisis occurs necessitating additional time and effort to address the problem, there is often little opportunity for collegiality among nonprofit board members. In recent times, with many board members living time-compressed lifestyles, colleagues not only don’t know each other but may pass each other on the street without recognition! This lack of personal interaction makes it difficult for directors to understand and share perspectives regarding the organization. It is clearly the board and CEO’s responsibility to provide these opportunities by organizing social events and/or small gatherings for board people to interact– perhaps over breakfast, lunch or wine. Another option is to extend an invitation to attend local or regional professional events. Or to invite board members to join a conference call during the weekly call between the board chair and the CEO. People contact within the board cements relationships and becomes an asset to working together as a group.
Financial Personnel-Might Be Substantial Risk?: Financial people, as a group or individually, can constitute a potential risk group. At the very least, each board member should be thoroughly acquainted with the CFO, his/h senior reports and the professional qualifications of each, especially in relation to their abilities to stay current with financial requirements. The board needs to provide sufficient signals to all staff personal that it is alert to unethical behavior, especially fraud. Similarly, the board and/or its committees need to make certain that there is substantial compliance with all regulations imposed by governmental or professional organizations. Example: One CFO delayed the delivery of an accounts receivable report for an extended time period. Neither the board nor management demanded it. When the report finally arrived, the board found that the CFO had been carrying a substantial number of bad debts as assets. To rectify the situation, the nonprofit had to engage costly forensic accountants. Although the board was also substantially at fault in its due care, both the CFO and CEO were fired.
The CEO-Can Be A Substantial Risk: Like a marriage, there needs to be substantial trust between the board members and CEO. However the CEO should to be comfortable with a policy of “trust but verify.” This requires that the board members and/or its audit committee ask questions or make inquiries that sometimes might appear be insulting. Some examples:
The Staff- Can BeModerate Risk: Board members need to be have enough contact with management and staff in order to be able to help identify those who with talent may be eligible for promotion, understanding that traditionally the CEO has is responsible for internal promotions. Unfortunately this is a nonprofit board responsibility that is often neglected. But it needs to be reviewed annually at the time that CEO succession is reviewed by the board.
A nonprofit is only as good as its team of people. With many of the board members rotating off after their terms have expired, it becomes an ongoing challenge to keep them apprised of potential risks and challenges. The board must develop its own way to a nonprofit’s success. In addition, it must overview management and staff to build background knowledge on those with potential to become future leaders.
Nonprofit board members and managers have acquired a measured of savvy when it comes to raising funds for their organizations. They have learned that building trust with current and prospective donors is the key to maintaining meaningful support. Here are some overlooked tactics to further strengthen relationships. *
Show the donors “what’s in it for them:” Some development officers still lead by focusing on what is of interest to them—the construction of a new building, providing funds for the nonprofit’s strategic development plan, etc. But they often lack certain perspectives. These are the skills to effectively interact with business executives like those holding C-Suite positions. These senior managers value evidence that the nonprofit representatives have “done their homework.” Pre-meeting preparation must include generating information on the executive (s’) professional and career background(s) that is readily available from LinkedIn. Also it is necessary to have some information about the challenges the firm or its industry are encountering. This level of preparation helps set a basis for better communications and managerial discussions that C-Suite personnel value.
Consistency: Be ready to clearly indicate that the nonprofit has a well-developed mission that is future oriented. A nonprofit with a record of financial results that consistently meets budget requirements is one example. Low turnover at the management and/or staff level is another. But also be ready to answer such visionary questions as, “How do you expect your organization to change in the next five years?”
Reputation: Every nonprofit, large of small, has a reputation among its peers and the general public. Be certain that the donor has a clear idea of what it is and is not a wish list of what it might be. Emphasize the impact data available, supported by impact information. For example, Family Service nonprofits are actually multi-purpose human service organizations. But the chapter names can deliver a different message—organizations devoted to family planning. As a result of this potential interpretation, the names of some chapters have been changed to e.g. Family and Children’s Service or Families First.
Building Personal Relationships: Personal connections are the basic building blocks of donor relationships. Some professional development officers suggest that major donors should be thanked seven times. ** But thanking is only the beginning of a continuing process. Nonprofit CEOs and board chairs need to be proactive in visiting major donors on an annual basis, or more often if the donor wants more contact. The purpose here is not to seek additional funding but rather to reinforce a message related to mission impact. An invitation to a social event is another way of maintaining these connections. Sometimes a follow-up to a major donor can yield unusual results. I recently observed a situation where a board member made an effort to follow through on a social event invitation to a long-term donor. It yielded a substantial contribution within 10 days of the event. Every nonprofit board needs a proactive donor response program. These responsibilities should be noted in the CEO’s and Board Chair’s responsibilities.
Be honest, even if that means saying “No”: When a gift involves undesirable mission creep or an unfunded charge to current assets, be prepared to say “No.” Universities, for example, have been known to accept buildings as gifts that can quickly become maintenance liabilities. Cash grants may have unfavorable strings attached tot them. Donor intent must clearly be understood. Princeton University had to return a large endowment when the donor’s heirs proved the university did not use it in a manner that confirmed the donor’s wishes.
Open your Doors to Donors: Where possible, invite current and potential donors to the nonprofit’s offices or operational facilities. Even when the office is a series of enclosures or open offices, the visit gives the donors a feel for the culture and a chance to know the people dedicated to the mission. A visit is even more helpful when the facility is an active one, such as a food distribution pantry, sheltered workshop or a call center.
The fog of the nonprofit board overviewing processes often obscures the importance of cultivating donor relationships that may, in time, fuel a nonprofit’s progress. The above review is a reminder to board members and management of their responsibilities to the artful pursuit of asking.
Chinese Proverb: The wise person learns from his/h own experiences. The wiser person learns from the experiences of others
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 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?”
Nonprofit boards need to expand their evaluations of nonprofit managers and their organizations adding more behavioral impacts * to their evaluations.
For example, a nonprofit might count the number of volunteers that have been trained. But boards must go to the next level in the 21st century. In the case of volunteers, they must seek to understand the impacts on those trained. They need, for instance, to understand how well these volunteers are assisting clients and how they are representing the nonprofit to the clients. The training is a process, but it determines their relationships with clients and yields impact data.
Qualitative data must be developed to the next level, and the average nonprofit CEO will argue that he/she doesn’t have the staff or expertise to develop impact data. Engaging an outside organization to complete a simple project can cost thousands of dollars.
Gene Takagi, noted San Francisco attorney, who specializes in nonprofit organizations published an article listing 12 reasons for resigning from a nonprofit board. It is worth reading.*
BUT
Nonprofit board members often become impatient with the slow pace of progress toward positive change. Here are some actions that may change the situation, improve service to clients and prepare the organization for any long-term mission disruptions.
• Talk With The CEO: He/s may feel the same frustrations and be delighted to find a board member who shares his goals. In fact, she/h may be thinking of leaving or be wedded to the current area only because of a family situation. As a result, your conversation may give a chief executive new hope and energy. On the other hand, if the CEO is too aligned with the past, it will be unlikely that the board will terminate the current CEO, unless there are some performance malfeasances involved. Then, estimate the CEO’s remaining tenure and use remaining time to find opportunities to make modest increments in change.
• Talk With Other Directors: Between board meetings, have informal coffee sessions with other directors to determine their views on the areas in which you feel change is necessary. Three or four board opinion leaders can garner positive movement, assuming there are no strong objections from the CEO.
• Outside Validation. If sufficient budget is available, ask the board to engage a consultant to examine the potentials for change. The rationale for the request might be: “We are doing well, let’s determine how we can better serve our clients.” If budget isn’t available or the CEO is against the expenditure, try to have the board arrange, for an outside speaker or two who might validate the need for change. This might be a person from the field or a local professor who has some insights aligned with change-focused board members .
• Seek Outside Financing: Personally seek sources for capacity grants that, if awarded, might be developed to further help clients. Ask the board to take leadership in applying for several of these grants. A single successful grant might be the linchpin to promote the type of change desired by the group having similar views.
• Chair The Nominations Committee: As chair, the director can be in a position to search for candidates who are forward looking. In addition, the committee, under the urging of the chair, can seek candidates who have served on other nonprofit boards and who have proven their meddle to bring about change.
Summary For any single board member of a status quo nonprofit to lead a change on organizational culture will require tenacity, time and patience. The person will need to be extremely dedicated to the organization’s mission and want to improve the services to its clients. Very few board members have the grit to lead such a change. However, a small-motivated group can be an advanced guard to initiate some actions in the right direction. But the group will have to keep Peter Drucker’s insight in mind when the going gets tough, “Culture eats strategy change for breakfast.”
An unusual case of an ED accused of serious malfeasance, but the board refused to fire him. http://bit.ly/1om6XUw
Does A New Nonprofit Board Member Really Understand Your Organization? The New Board Member Nurturing Challenge!
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
The careful nurturing of a new board member, whether for-profit or nonprofit, is critical. The pay-off of a robust orientation process is an informed and fully participating board director. The following are very similar occurrences in both for-profit and nonprofit boards:
The CEO of a transportation firm agrees to become a board director of a firm developing computer programs. He has risen through the transportation ranks with a financial background, but he knows little about the dynamics of the computer industry.
A finance professor is asked to serve on the board of a nonprofit school serving handicapped children. She has no children of her own and has never had any contact with handicapped children, social workers or teachers serving handicapped children.
In these similar cases, the new board member needs to become reasonably conversant with a new industry or a new human service field in order to be able to better apply policy development skills, strategic planning skills and to allow generative thinking.
On nonprofit boards, the problem is exacerbated when the new board member often is asked to immediately join a specific board committee without being able to understand the board perspectives and the organization’s mission vision and values. Following are ways in which the nonprofit board can resolve this problem:
Don’t appoint the new board member to committee until she/h has completed a board orientation program including a review of board procedures, attending several board meetings, has had visits with the staff, as they normally operate, and becomes alert to the major trends in the field. This ideally should take about six months assuming the board member is employed full-time elsewhere.
During this time, the chief executive and board president should be available to visit with the new board member as frequently as she/h wants in order to respond to questions.
Hopefully, the chief executive would informally meet the new board member (and each established director) quarterly to review current issues and opportunities. In addition to the information presented at the board meetings, this will provide a better perspective of the board’s mission, vision and values.
Ideally, the board volunteer should attend one staff meeting and one outside professional meeting to acquire a feeling for the topics reviewed at these gatherings and the field terminology.
During the first year, a senior board member needs be seated next to the new person at meetings to act as a “host” for the new board member.
If most of these actions can be accomplished within a six-month period, major blind spots are removed, and the new board member can then join a standing board committee or an active task force. Now, reasonably understanding the organization and her/h own participation on the board, she/h has a background to make a substantial contribution for years to come.
Applying Fundamentals of a Nonprofit’s DNA To Enhance Planning
By: Eugene Fram Free Digital Image
No two nonprofit organizations are identical. Each may reflect similar missions visions and values but—because of basic differences in their DNAs * —are clearly impacted by distinct characteristics that may have developed over a long time period.
Bob Harris, CAE, suggests a nonprofit’s DNA consists of five elements. * * Following are my thoughts on how they can be applied, if a nonprofit board wants to develop an understanding of the “real world” applications of the Harris DNA elements. This needs to take place prior to the planning efforts.
Nonprofit Management 