tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34160410430140841832024-02-20T15:06:47.563-08:00CoreStrategies on NonprofitsThis blog is designed to engage the nonprofit community in dialog. Created by CoreStrategies for Nonprofits, Inc., it includes our popular monthly On Nonprofits column.Terrie Temkin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06115456112406830259noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3416041043014084183.post-50807592236875835402013-06-25T19:07:00.000-07:002013-06-25T19:07:10.461-07:00Boards Risk the Future of the Arts When They Ignore the Youth of Today<br />
I’m an arts buff. I love the theater, live music, dance, and the visual arts. You will often find me attending two or three plays in a weekend, or going to a museum and then on to a performance of jazz or modern dance. The more I dive into the arts, the happier I am personally, but the more fearful I am for the future of the arts. Why? I’m in my 60s, and I’m usually one of the youngest people in attendance, regardless of the genre. (Okay, so I’m not going to the rap concerts, but still….) I constantly worry about the future. Who will occupy the seats in another 20 years, especially in our classical venues? <br />
<br />
Yes, there will always be a few young people who love Mozart or Swan Lake. In my own family I have a nephew and niece that are classical musicians. However, while young people will continue to make art, as people have done since the beginning of time, I worry whether there will be anyone who will support their art, who will buy tickets and attend the performances, allowing them to work at what they love.<br />
<br />
This is an issue that I feel too few boards seriously grapple with. Yes, you see organizations that open up their space after work for networking and wine and cheese, but is that going to convert generations of younger people into dedicated audiences for the future? I think not. After all, it hasn’t yet. And if I’m right, what will?<br />
<br />
Clearly, there are no easy answers. If there were, I wouldn’t be writing this essay. But I think our boards can take a more proactive role in trying to find solutions. Here are two specific approaches they can take to mitigate the loss of the arts as we know them.<br />
<br />
<b>Spend Time Wrestling with Generative Questions</b> <br />
Generative questions deal not with the “how,” but the “why.” Instead of asking, “How do we attract Millennials?” arts boards need to first understand the underlying nature of the problem. They need to ask, “Why aren’t they coming?” Is it, for instance, a lack of money to buy tickets? A lack of exposure to what is currently being offered – after all, very few people of any age are willing to spend money on an unknown? A dislike of what is being offered? A “coolness” (or lack of “coolness”) factor? An issue of not having the right clothes? A discomfort with being surrounded by people their grandparents’ age?<br />
<br />
The board also needs to pay attention to the cues it is relying on to come to its conclusion. Is it assuming, perhaps, that young people don’t have the right clothes to wear because, on the rare occasions they do come to the theater, they always come in jeans? Or, did the board focus on the fact that less time is spent teaching the classics in school, and therefore the issue must be lack of previous exposure? To get it right, directors have to challenge their colleagues and ask questions like, “Are we focusing on the on the most logical explanations? Why do we think that? What else aren’t we considering?” They might even reframe the issue by asking questions such as, “What has our experience as parents/teachers/bosses taught us?”<br />
<br />
The more information you have as a board, the more likely your decisions will be on target. Spend a significant part of each board meeting asking questions, delving into the “why” behind the “what” before attempting to answer “how.”<br />
<br />
<b>Include Young People on Arts Boards</b><br />
If we want to attract the younger generations to the arts, we have to hear their voices. The best way to do that is put young people on our boards. Of course, “young” is a relative term. In Florida, for instance, “young” is often defined as under 60! But I’m advocating for YOUNG, including, though not limited to, high school and college age youth. These people are our future. They are the ones you want to attract as audience members. And, nobody knows better than they what is important to them.<br />
<br />
Young people can serve on boards, even if state law prohibits them from are voting. Organizations like the Girl Scouts have been including them on boards for years. They serve next to adult directors and have all the same responsibilities for preparation and participation. In such organizations the adults have learned to respect the input of their young colleagues because they see the young people taking their job seriously and providing valuable insights to the group. (To learn more about how the Girl Scouts have successfully incorporated youth, read “Preparing the Board Leaders of Tomorrow by Involving Youth in Governance Today” by Olivia Selinger and Deb Walters, p. 187 of <i>YOU and Your Nonprofit Board: Advice and Practical Tips from the Field’s Top Practitioners, Researcher, and Provocateurs</i>, Terrie Temkin editor, CharityChannel Press, 2013)<br />
<br />
Be sure to bring enough young people on the board to ensure a cohort. Nobody wants to be the only one “under 30” on a board. Typically recruiting three of anything – 20-somethings, Latinos or people with a dance background – ensures a comfort level for the directors, leading to better input and, ultimately, the best decisions for the organization.<br />
<br />
These two approaches take work and neither is a magic bullet. However, invest the effort in experimenting with both and you will see a definite change for the better. Doesn’t your arts organization deserve the chance to enrich and extend its life?<br />
<div class="blogger-post-footer">Thank you for requesting to receive blog posts from CoreStrategeis for Nonprofits.</div>Terrie Temkin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06115456112406830259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3416041043014084183.post-75912251352045864242012-08-05T22:45:00.000-07:002012-08-05T22:45:25.344-07:00NOW IS THE TIME TO START YOUR BEQUEST PROGRAM!Could your organization use more money?
<p>For most nonprofits, churches and synagogues, bequests are the most undervalued and under-accessed revenue stream. These end-of-life gifts can be used to enhance the quality of your programs and services, and in more and more cases they can serve as a financial safety net in the toughest of times. Established organizations with a significant number of prospects have the best chance for bequest success. If your organization, church or synagogue has 10 years or more of history and a market of at least 300 prospects, it is always the right time to start a Bequest Development Program. Here are some of the reasons why:</p>
<ul><li>It is estimated that bequests comprise upwards of 80% of all end-of-life charitable gifts.</li>
<li>In 2011 charitable bequests totaled $24.5 billion, a 12.2% increase from the previous year.</li>
<li>Various studies have indicated that 8-18% of decedents leave charitable bequests.</li>
<li>Studies have also indicated that many more people would be willing to leave charitable bequests if asked.</li>
<li>Like other major gifts, the relative development costs are low.</li>
<li>In most instances, the majority of the prospect cultivation has already been done.</li>
<li>Bequest prospects are easily identified and prioritized.</li>
<li>Bequests do not compete with lifetime gifts and have been shown to positively impact lifetime giving.</li>
<li>Bequests can mean millions of dollars in new, untapped revenue.</li></ul>
<p>While the general case for bequest development is ongoing, evident and strong; there are several factors that make right now the opportune time to start. These include:</p>
<ul><li>The greatest generation of US philanthropists are aging. From our schools, to our churches, to our community agencies, they have built the institutions that provide essential programs and services to our communities and they care about what they’ve built. We have relied on them for support year in and year out and they have responded. What happens when they are gone?</li>
<li>The Great Recession has negatively impacted the charitable giving of many of our donors. Particularly our older ones; those who are on fixed incomes. They are frightened that they might “outlive” their money and be left without resources. They want to help, but are reluctant to give at past levels or even at all. Gifts from their estates, particularly residuary and contingent ones, are less threatening to their sense of security than lifetime gifts. It gives them an opportunity to make a difference to the causes they are passionate about, forever.</li>
<li>The Boomers, our largest generation, are at or approaching retirement age. As a result, many of them will be reviewing their financial and estate plans, and rewriting their wills and trusts. This is a great time for them to consider a charitable bequest.</li>
<li>Estate and Gift Tax laws are in flux. While we do not know exactly what the changes will be, we do know that any changes will necessitate the review of financial and estate plans for many of our donors. These reviews offer the perfect time for them to consider and integrate a charitable bequest in their plans.</li>
<li>The bequest development field is still not crowded. The competition for bequests is not nearly as intense as the competition for annual, capital and other lifetime gifts.</li></ul>
<p>Can you imagine if your predecessors started a Bequest Development Program 5, 10 or 15 years ago? Think of how much easier it would be to manage the finances of your organization, church or synagogue today...</p>
<p>There is an old aphorism that goes something like this… the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The next best time is now. As volunteers and professionals we have accepted the responsibility of leadership. Those of us with the wisdom to understand the positive and even existential impact a Bequest Development Program can have must find the courage to muster the resources to begin now.</p>
<p>By Irv Geffen, CoreStrategies Strategic Partner</P>
<p>Legacy Now Program</p><div class="blogger-post-footer">Thank you for requesting to receive blog posts from CoreStrategeis for Nonprofits.</div>Terrie Temkin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06115456112406830259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3416041043014084183.post-90639368040702603452012-03-01T19:05:00.001-08:002012-03-01T19:10:49.707-08:00Is a Strong Conflict of Interest Policy Enough? A Morality Play, Act IThe University of Miami and its president Donna Shalala got an early but ugly Valentine on February 13 when the community woke up to a front-page article in the <i>Miami Herald</i> entitled, "Shalala’s side job stirs up concerns." It turns out that Dr. Shalala has been sitting on two corporate boards with her trustees’ blessing. The fact that she is making for her board service more than $360,000 each year – on top of her greater than $1 million annual salary from the university – in a time of upset with the One Percent wasn’t the biggest shock. It was that the corporations are owned by university trustees. <p>
First, I must say that I have always held Dr. Shalala in the highest regard and I trust that her ethical standards and those of her trustees Roger Medel (Mednax) and Stuart Miller (Lennar) are above reproach. I’m confident, too, that all three organizations involved here have strict conflict of interest policies to which they adhere. But that doesn’t mean that those who care about the University of Miami shouldn’t be apprehensive.<p>
When working with clients I always suggest that the litmus test for any decision is how you will feel if you wake up one morning to find the resulting situation on the front page of the newspaper. Tuesday the 13th, it was. And the response wasn’t pretty, if the Herald’s Flashpoint comments on the Opinion page were indicative. This is a private university that relies on big donations, a number of which Dr. Shalala has personally influenced. The university is just kicking-off a $1.6 billion – yes, with a “b” – campaign. I have to wonder if this publicity won’t, at least in the short term, negatively affect charitable giving and consequently what the university can offer.<p>
I worry about the independence of a board where there is so much overlap of leadership. The university and the community are not well served if, even at a subconscious level, trustees and/or the university president hold back from sharing their most creative ideas or raising challenges and critical issues – responsibilities inherent in good governance – because they are afraid that showing vulnerability in one setting will impact their role in another. Moreover, any other trustee who hesitates to speak his/her mind because s/he isn’t part of a perceived inner circle ultimately cheats the university of his/her best efforts.<p>
A related concern is that by going back to the same small group of community leaders to sit on so many of our boards, we are getting only one, relatively homogeneous view of what the community needs. While presumably an intelligent view, it is still an insular one. More diversity on our boards could only benefit the university and the community as a whole.<p>
I can appreciate why any CEO would want someone of Dr. Shalala’s caliber on his/her board. But she doesn’t have to sit on a board to offer insights. If she is going to sit on a board, she’d be wise to steer clear of the boards of her own trustees. The University of Miami Board of Trustees should insist on this. After all, that group is responsible for ensuring the health of the university. It can’t risk the loss of independence, diverse thought or potential donations.<p>
The university has been rather quiet about this flap. Time will tell what the fallout might be. But in my mind the situation serves as a morality play for other organizations. Having a conflict of interest statement is an important first step. But in scientific terms, while necessary it is not sufficient.<p>
What are your thoughts? Is this a lesson other organizations should learn from? Or, is it much ado about nothing? Perhaps Dr. Shalala, with a lens already on her football team, is just too big a target and others don’t have to worry. Are there situations where it is appropriate for the CEO of a nonprofit to sit on the corporate boards of his/her own trustees?<div class="blogger-post-footer">Thank you for requesting to receive blog posts from CoreStrategeis for Nonprofits.</div>Terrie Temkin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06115456112406830259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3416041043014084183.post-34967913757835909222011-12-21T17:51:00.000-08:002011-12-21T17:51:02.406-08:00Is the Arts and Culture Community on Your List of Potential Collaborators?Few would argue the value of arts and culture. The vibrancy of arts and culture within a community has long been a key indicator of its livability. Individuals and companies looking to move into an area frequently evaluate the number and diversity of offerings as part of their decision-making process. Art therapy has proven helpful in treating a wide variety of conditions, from Alzheimer’s to physical and emotional trauma. And, a great deal of attention has recently been paid to the substantial economic impact of arts and culture. According to the 2010 National Arts Index, a report issued by Americans for the Arts, economic activity in the U.S., while losing ground during the recession, is still a $150‐$160 billion a year business that puts more than 2 million people to work and increasingly attracts cultural tourists (the number of foreign visitors who attend cultural events or venues has increased 23% since 2003). <br />
<br />
However, today we have another reason to value arts and culture. It’s being used “in increasingly diverse ways to engage and build communities and address the root causes of persistent societal problems, including issues of economic, educational and environmental injustice as well as inequities in civil and human rights.” (“Fusing Arts, Culture and Social Change: High Impact Strategies for Philanthropy” by Holly Sidford for the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, 2011) Artist-activists are pulling us in, forcing us to examine our assumptions and the way we do business. <br />
<br />
To-date, most of this work has emerged from and been centered in the art world. Just one example from my community is the Center for Folk and Community Art, which involves the community’s residents in story-telling, using a combination of written work, murals and public presentation. In the past it has focused attention on societal issues such as gang culture and violence, bullying, abuse and violence in teen dating relationships, the environment and homelessness. <br />
<br />
But, arts and culture could be so much more. It could be totally integrated into the fabric of social change, where artists sit at the same table as nonprofits, private businesses and governmental agencies committed to creating a healthier place for each of us to live. This is particularly important as the artistic voices of those who have previously often been disenfranchised – i.e., those making art outside of the better supported and recognized Western European, “classical” art forms – break through, since there is much to be learned from these voices.<br />
<br />
According to the Animating Democracy’s 2010 report, “Trend or Tipping Point: Arts and Social Change Grantmaking” there are currently more than 150 funders nationwide that have recognized the value of supporting coalitions that are dedicated to social change and are inclusive of artists. I am proud that our own local community foundation is one of them. But what of the many nonprofits currently putting together coalitions to more successfully tackle community issues that are at the heart of their mission? <br />
<br />
If your organization is contemplating collaboration, I would like to know if your board is considering the contribution artists, arts and culture could make in your success? How intentional is your board about including artists, especially those outside “mainstream arts and culture”? How are you going about finding the appropriate partners? Please write in and share your experiences and learnings.<div class="blogger-post-footer">Thank you for requesting to receive blog posts from CoreStrategeis for Nonprofits.</div>Terrie Temkin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06115456112406830259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3416041043014084183.post-21848872017012166822011-10-02T15:56:00.000-07:002011-10-02T15:56:01.652-07:00Power to the People: One More Reason for Boards to Listen to Their CommunitiesSmile Train and Operation Smile both provide (literally) face-saving surgeries to indigent children outside the U.S. born with cleft palates. Smile Train is actually an offshoot of Operation Smile, rising out of a difference in philosophy. Whereas Operation Smile sends doctors overseas to perform the operations, Smile Train uses local doctors. The spinoff, which occurred in the late 1990’s, left the two organizations bitter rivals. However, with the changes in the world the two organizations contemplated a merger this past spring that would have brought them back together again. Merger talks were suddenly called off though when donors of Smile Train representing 82 million dollars in contributions expressed opposition to the proposition – some quite publicly. <br />
<br />
This is but one example of what those of us who closely follow the many news briefs and RSS feeds from the sector are increasingly seeing (special thanks to Ruth McCambridge, editor of <i>The Nonprofit Quarterly</i> who along with her colleagues put out an excellent daily feed and recently raised this particular example at the Alliance Conference in Oakland, California) – community stakeholders who are mad as hell about some of the decisions being made in their name. And, they aren't just going to take it any more. (For those too young to get the cultural referent, rent the 1976 film <i>Network</i>. It’s probably more relevant now than when it was released.) The public brouhaha that embroiled Smile Train and Operation Smile is just the latest volley in a trend that began with donors wanting a say in how their money is spent. It is a trend that intensified with those donors demanding the return of their money if they feel that the intent behind their gift is not being honored. And, it is a trend that became a runaway train with the decision of an increasing number of stakeholders to pump their financial and human assets into new organizations when they sense the legacy organizations are failing to achieve sufficient or desired impact.<br />
<br />
Boards today must recognize that the marketplace will drive which nonprofits shall live and which shall die. If boards aren't paying close attention to what their stakeholders deem important, they may find their organizations on the list of failed entities and their personal reputations sullied for betraying the community’s trust.<br />
<br />
To me, the lesson is obvious. Someway, somehow, boards must listen – really listen – to their stakeholders. This might be done informally as long as there is some intentional way of capturing the data on an ongoing basis, such as including BTW Talk on every agenda. For those who have not heard me explain this before, the BTW Talk involves scheduling 20 minutes or so at each meeting to discover what board members have been hearing in conversations with friends, family and colleagues since the last time the board met. These are conversations that could potentially impact the organization and its mission in some way and often start with, “By the way….” <br />
<br />
Or, it can involve instituting a means for gathering information on a more formal basis. For instance, the board might contract to survey the community on a regular basis. These surveys can be done online, through the mail, in person or over the phone. Interviews, insight or focus groups, and large-scale change methodologies such as World Café, Future Search or Appreciative Inquiry can also be employed to garner the community’s insights. <br />
<br />
The focused and purposeful use of advisory councils is another means of tapping into what the community needs. So is bringing greater diversity into our boardrooms. One way to do this is to choose a model such as Community Engagement Governance (see Freiwirth, Judy. “Engagement Governance for System-Wide Decision Making.” <i>Nonprofit Quarterly</i>. Summer 2007. pgs. 38 – 39), which actually shares the power of decision-making with different individuals in the community based on their interests and areas of expertise. The key in all of these cases is to truly give weight to what the community is saying and not just employ the techniques as window dressing. <br />
<br />
Since this list is by no means inclusive, I am anxious to hear what others have used to stay in touch with what their stakeholders are thinking, feeling and desiring. Please share your success stories and your “learning experiences.”<div class="blogger-post-footer">Thank you for requesting to receive blog posts from CoreStrategeis for Nonprofits.</div>Terrie Temkin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06115456112406830259noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3416041043014084183.post-50739945082737424702011-09-28T12:45:00.000-07:002011-09-29T13:03:02.889-07:00Living with Hope, Part 4<em>In Parts 1-3 (please read those first if you haven't already), I talked about how my colleague Jim Mueller's blog about keeping a sense of hope during these challenging times inspired me to write about my amazing 3-legged Husky who happens to be named Hope. Her story may remind you of what we (and our organizations) are capable of if we approach each day with a focus on the gift of the now, while not losing sight of the possible (our vision).</em><br /><br /><br />Becoming part of the "pack" (human and dog) at the dog park has been an amazing journey. Hope and I tried out several dog parks (we are really lucky to live in an area where dog parks are plentiful) and settled on one that is close to our home. We began going almost every day at about the same time, early evening. Soon, Hope formed friendships with a few of the regulars and then so did I.<br /><br /><br />For about a year, none of us knew anything more about each other than our first names. Our conversations were very dog-oriented. Then, over time, we all began to bond in other ways, talking about work, personal life, challenges, joys. During the past four years, one of the pack got breast cancer, and we all got together to help with daily needs including care of her dog while she went through chemo and radiation. We celebrated births. We have been through deaths of loved ones and of beloved pets, and welcomed puppies. We helped out when someone had a car accident and couldn't drive for a while. We began to give and refer business to one another. We began to have parties! One of us who by day is an accountant is a drummer in a local band, so we go and dance when he plays.<br /><br /><br />We have become a really committed group of friends with the love of dogs as our core value. It just feels good, natural and comforting. We watch out for our dogs and for each other. Our daily time together in the park is when we get to leave the day behind and truly live in the now. We watch the dogs play and catch up with each other. And I know that Hope has a special place in the hearts of this group. I hear the pride in their voices when they describe her, how amazing she is, when new people come to the park and ask about her missing leg.<br /><br />If you are reading this blog, you are probably involved in the nonprofit world and have no trouble understanding what I am saying. It doesn't hurt to remind ourselves that one of the reasons we do this is because we like to be around other people whose values match ours, people who care about others (human and animal) and want to make the world a better place. Through our work and our lives outside of work, we keep going forward with our commitment to change and better our communities. It's what we are about.<br /><br /><br />On that note, I would like to end this blog series with the last of my Hope-isms to add to the 13 on the previous posts.<br /><br /><ul><br /><br /><li>Climb a tree while you still can</li><br /><br /><br /><li>Live in the moment, especially if it includes a roll in the grass</li><br /><br /><br /><li>A good massage does wonders for aching legs</li><br /><br /><br /><li>Knowing when to back off is as important as knowing when to stand your ground</li><br /><br /><br /><li>Protect your friends, especially from bullies</li><br /><br /><br /><li>Jump up and run to the door when your loved one comes home, even if it takes you a few minutes to get your balance</li></ul><br /><br /><br /><p></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">Thank you for requesting to receive blog posts from CoreStrategeis for Nonprofits.</div>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3416041043014084183.post-71574011177869008902011-09-26T10:04:00.000-07:002011-09-26T11:05:51.141-07:00Living with Hope, Part 3In Parts 1 and 2 (please read those first if you haven't already), I talked about how my colleague Jim Mueller's blog about keeping a sense of hope during these challenging times inspired me to write about my amazing 3-legged Husky who happens to be named Hope. Her story may remind you of what we (and our organizations) are capable of if we approach each day with a focus on the gift of the now, while not losing sight of the possible (our vision).<br /><br /><br />After Hope and I had been living together for about a year, I began to research what types of assisting devices might be available to help her. As it turns out, there is really nothing much out there for dogs missing an entire front leg. I did find something I thought might be helpful to her. It was a two-wheeled cart with supportive fabric that fit around her chest. Her one front leg rested off the ground while the wheels supported her.<br /><br /><br />I was very excited on the day we went to try out this device -- Hope, however, not so much. She gave me withering looks during the fitting. I kept thinking "But wait until you see how much fun you will have with this!" Oh, was I wrong. Cart in place, Hope tried to walk toward me. But instead she began to circle. The harder she tried, the faster she went in a full circle. As it turned out, because of the imbalance the device caused, it was impossible for her to propel herself forward. I actually think the whole episode embarrassed her. That was the last time I went in search of a "fix." Hope doesn't see herself as needing fixing -- I was the one who did.<br /><br /><br />So we have now been together almost five years. Hope is thriving. In my next and last post, I'll give you a sense of our daily routines. I do believe one way or another Hope had a vision of this good life when she was struggling to survive on the streets of Miami. If she thought her entire life would be days full of pain and suffering I doubt she would have lasted. Along with the seven Hope-inspired life and work lessons I listed in Part 2, here are seven more. We'll conclude the list in Part 4.<br /><br /><ul><br /><li>Rest when you need to</li><br /><br /><li>A good howl every now and then is very cathartic</li><br /><br /><li>A little dance before heading out the door for a nice walk puts you in a great mood</li><br /><br /><li>A good head to toe stretch before your walk is also helpful</li><br /><br /><li>A great attitude goes a long way in assuring a fun day</li><br /><br /><li>Keep your ears clean and listen more than you talk</li><br /><br /><li>Always be making friends </li></ul><div class="blogger-post-footer">Thank you for requesting to receive blog posts from CoreStrategeis for Nonprofits.</div>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3416041043014084183.post-47634273494717195912011-09-25T05:02:00.000-07:002011-09-25T05:45:47.948-07:00Living with Hope, Part 2In Part 1, I introduced Hope, my three-legged rescued Husky. Here in Part 2, you'll begin to see, as I did, that this is no ordinary dog.<br /><br />For the first few weeks that Hope and I lived together, she was in heat and then, when that ended, was spayed and recovering from the surgery. So we kept pretty close to home. Then finally I got to take her for a walk in the beautiful park across the street. I tried not to think about her former life and feel sorry for her -- the advice I had been given was to treat her with the same affection and disclipline one would have for any dog. And yet it was clearly so difficult for her to walk, which at first was just heartbreaking to see. To keep her balance, she has to tilt her front leg toward the center of her body. This results in a distinct bobbing motion and a lot of huffing and puffing. I couldn't help but tear up. And then it happened. <br /><br />We were walking by a large oak tree, and a squirrel ran up the trunk. Before I knew what was happening, Hope took a verticle six foot leap off the ground right into the crook of the tree after that squirrel. I was dumbfounded.<br /><br />Once up there, she did need help getting down, but that leap took my breath away. I wondered what else she could do that she hadn't showed me yet? Plenty, it turned out.<br /><br />I began taking her to area dog parks. She had apparently not been around many dogs, because her socialization skills needed a lot of work. But she learned quickly and began to establish friendships. That was great and really heartwarming but not unexpected. What was truly amazing was how she could run. <br /><br />Gone is the awkard bobbing and labored breathing. When she runs, Hope's back legs propel her forward so fast, and she keeps her body so close to the ground, that you can't even see she is missing a leg. People whose first glance of her is while she is running are shocked when she stops and they then see that her left front leg is missing. <br /><br />And oh, the joy she feels when she runs. It's unmistakeable.<br /><br />In my next post I'll share what the dog park has ended up meaning for both of us. Meanwhile, here is the beginning of a lengthy list of life and work lessons we humans in Hope's world have learned from her. More in Part 3.<br /><br /><ul><br /><li>Always believe things will get better.</li><br /><li>Take help when it is offered, especially if it moves you toward achieving your vision.</li><br /><li>A skip in your step isn't necessarily a bad thing.</li><br /><li>Not everyone will "get" you -- focus on those who do.</li><br /><li>Everyone is awkward at something.</li><br /><li>Everyone is great at something.</li></ul><br /><p></p><div class="blogger-post-footer">Thank you for requesting to receive blog posts from CoreStrategeis for Nonprofits.</div>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3416041043014084183.post-18530192436385205462011-09-24T07:58:00.000-07:002011-09-25T05:04:41.199-07:00Living with Hope, Part 1Our esteemed colleague Jim Mueller recently blogged about "hope-whispering," approaching life and work with optimism especially in these challenging times. I particularly loved that phrase because I have a really inspiring three-legged Husky named Hope. With your indulgence, I'm going to post a few thoughts about her over the next few days. There are so many ways her courage and how she embraces life can be an important touchstone for us as we continue our hard and sometimes discouraging work to make the world a better place.<br /><br />Today I'll share her history. Hope was found on the streets of Miami where she had somehow survived over what appears to have been a significant period of time. She was about a year old, alone, dirty, skinny, in heat, petrified and missing a left front leg. She was rescued and named by the all-volunteer nonprofit group South Florida Siberian Husky Rescue (SFSHR) .<br /><br />I had just applied to the group and been accepted as an approved adopter, and Hope ended up coming to me. I don't know who was more nervous about this turn of events. I hadn't had a pet for many years and certainly had no experience with abused and physically challenged un-housebroken dogs in heat! My most pressing concerns were how to walk her on a leash in a way that she could find a comfortable gate and how to get her diaper on and off (necessary until her heat ended and she could be spayed). It also quickly became clear that she was petrified of men, was insecure about being touched and had huge trust issues in general.<br /><br />While the people at SFSHR were really helpful and supportive, of course ultimately it was up to Hope and me to create our life together. As we both began to put one foot in front of the other to fashion that life, I had no way of knowing how profoundly Hope would affect me (and everyone who met her) and change my life. Stay tuned for the rest of the story.<div class="blogger-post-footer">Thank you for requesting to receive blog posts from CoreStrategeis for Nonprofits.</div>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3416041043014084183.post-53193587640566227772011-09-06T09:59:00.000-07:002011-09-06T09:59:44.316-07:00Boards - Your Chief Administrator Wants You to Learn and Practice CEO EvaluationAsk board members to list their responsibilities and most will include the supervision of the CEO. However, according to the findings of CompassPoint and Meyer Foundation researchers as reported in Daring to Lead 2011: A National Study of Nonprofit Executive Leadership, there is apparently a disconnect between what board members acknowledge as their responsibilities and what they take on, because close to half of the CEOs surveyed reported that they had not had a performance review within the past year. Adding concern, of those boards that do ensure their CEOs are reviewed, more than two-thirds may not be particularly skilled at the process, judging by the report that fewer than one-third of CEOs found their review either somewhat useful or very useful.<br />
<br />
With CEOs clamoring for effective feedback there are evaluation basics that every board can incorporate. Assign a month within which the CEO review will be done, add it to your compliance calendar and make a commitment to follow through. Ask the CEO to consider process and goals and to explain what he or she feels will make the review valuable on both a personal and organizational level. Gather input from the entire board. Then select a few board members to sit down with the CEO to negotiate what the review will consist of. Be sure success measures and deadlines are clearly defined so that everyone has a clear picture of what it will look like when the CEO has successfully met all expectations. Provide interim assessments that ensure everyone is still on the same page and that movement toward goal achievement is on track. (See “<a href="http://www.corestrategies4nonprofits.com/files_library/1315325798_Temkin_-_Evaluating_the_Top_Administrator.pdf">Evaluating the Top Administrator: A New Approach</a>” for more.)<br />
<br />
But what takes evaluation beyond the basics and ensures an effective result? I would like to learn what those boards that are providing “very useful” feedback are doing. I’d also like to hear from CEOs about what would make their reviews satisfying and helpful. Are there tips that you can share with your colleagues and partners? Perhaps you’ve asked a former board chair to lead the process or brought in a consultant to guide it. Maybe you’ve found a book or article that provided helpful insights into the process or content. All input is encouraged.<div class="blogger-post-footer">Thank you for requesting to receive blog posts from CoreStrategeis for Nonprofits.</div>Terrie Temkin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06115456112406830259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3416041043014084183.post-65951104760044799872011-08-19T12:18:00.000-07:002011-08-19T12:20:44.155-07:00An Open Question to Board Chairs: Do You Dare to Lead?Executive directors have thrown down the gauntlet. In “Daring to Lead 2011: A National Study of Nonprofit Executive Leadership” conducted by CompassPoint and the Meyer Foundation, only 20 percent of those surveyed reported being satisfied with their board’s performance. While a few of these executive directors might have a personality conflict with their current chair or have felt particularly frustrated with their board the day they responded, there must be something more significant going on to account for 80 percent of chief administrators indicating dissatisfaction with their boards.
<br />
<br />Determining the underlying factor(s) is particularly important in today’s rapidly changing environment where boards must be strong, strategic and steadfast so that their organizations can be responsive and achieve relevant results. Research by the likes of Herman, Renz and Heimovics, Nobbie and Brudney and others have made very clear that there is a relationship between the effectiveness of a board and the effectiveness of the organization for which the board works. While none could prove causality, each found that highly effective organizations have highly effective boards.
<br />
<br />I don’t believe that an organization’s effectiveness can be laid at the feet of just one person. Yet, I do believe that you, as board chair, have opportunity and influence that can be brought to bear in ways that you perhaps have not tested. Be honest with yourself. What more could you do to ensure a stronger board, and ultimately a stronger organization?
<br />
<br />For instance, research again tells us that highly effective boards use more proven practices than less effective boards. There are a lot of accepted practices out there that are actually based on myth. Are you just propagating these or are you analyzing their effectiveness? Are you making the effort to regularly read or participate in workshops and webinars to learn about governance practices rooted in science? Are you implementing what you’ve learned? If not, why not?
<br />
<br />As an unknown sage once said, “Hope is not a method.” You cannot afford to merely come in once a month to chair a meeting, check in occasionally with your executive director and write your column for the newsletter and expect an exceptional board to emerge. Nor can you rely on years of experience with a multitude of boards. The world has changed too much. If you dare to lead, tell us what you are doing differently and what impact it has made.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br /><div class="blogger-post-footer">Thank you for requesting to receive blog posts from CoreStrategeis for Nonprofits.</div>Terrie Temkin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06115456112406830259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3416041043014084183.post-73735006842328766342011-07-18T15:38:00.000-07:002011-07-18T16:15:46.471-07:00Succession Planning: Is Your Board Prepared for Transition?Everyone is talking about succession planning today. Much of the conversation is motivated by the large numbers of baby boomer executives expected to retire in the next few years. While this is a real concern deserving of our strategic attention, I have to wonder why so little attention is paid to succession on our boards of directors. After all, turnover is virtually an everyday occurrence on boards. Term limits and life’s challenges move people out of office or off the board altogether on a regular basis; and fewer and fewer individuals are stepping up and into the vacated leadership positions. The result is that boards are often forced to choose creative approaches to filling the empty chairs, such as allowing people to share the leadership responsibilities or conferring key positions on inexperienced talent. Unfortunately, experience tells us that such solutions typically result in a loss of organizational momentum or effectiveness. But, this needn’t be the case if we will commit to adequately preparing our boards for transition. <br /><br />I doubt there is anything we can do to bring back the days where people will spend a decade or more working their way up to a coveted leadership position. But a strong succession plan is within reach of every organization. To see how, we must first consider what a succession plan really is, and what it isn’t. It isn’t about knowing who the next three board chairs will be. It is ensuring that you have a strong board with clear procedures in place, where everyone understands the big picture, is engaged and knows his or her role. In other words, the best succession plan is having a board that regularly operates under proven practices because a board like that will be able to continue to perform effectively regardless of what position may turn up empty tomorrow or the next day. <br /><br />To determine if your board is prepared for the inevitable expected – to say nothing of sudden – transitions, answer the questions below. <br /> Does your board have criteria for membership?<br /> Does your board maintain a current pool of good prospects for board membership by continuously identifying and cultivating potential members?<br /> Does your board “test out” potential board members by encouraging committee or other participation first?<br /> Does each individual on your board have a job description?<br /> Does your board chair have a job description?<br /> Has each individual on your board gone through an orientation?<br /> Does your board share a collective vision for the community?<br /> Does your board share a passion for the mission of the organization?<br /> Does each individual on your board have ready access to a copy of the bylaws?<br /> Do the bylaws indicate how the transfer of power will operate under both normal and extenuating circumstances?<br /> Does your organization operate according to its bylaws?<br /> Are the expectations of your board members clear?<br /> Are board members that fail to live up to their expectations asked off the board? (Is this a given, regardless of the person’s affluence or influence?)<br /> Are your board members provided board education at every meeting?<br /> Does each individual on your board understand the issues critical to the organization’s mission?<br /> Do your board agendas encourage participation around substantive issues?<br /> Are decisions consistently made on the basis of your organization’s mission, vision, guiding principles as well as defined criteria for success?<br /> Is every individual on your board offered opportunities for leadership?<br /> Do your board members know each other well enough to look forward to working with one another?<br /> Does your board take time at most meetings to evaluate what it is doing well and what it could do better? <br /> Does your board do an annual self-evaluation?<br /> Does your board make changes in its behavior on the basis of its evaluations?<br /> Does each committee have a purpose?<br /> Does each committee have goals?<br /> Are your committees held accountable for achieving their goals?<br /> Does your board have a crisis management plan in place?<br /><br />If you answered “no” or “only sometimes” to most of these questions, you may be left wondering if there is a future for your organization when one or more of your key leaders leave. Don’t let that happen. Make a commitment today to begin working on those conditions to which you were not able to answer a resounding “yes” and soon you’ll realize that succession is no longer an issue because your board is functioning efficiently and effectively no matter who is in the driver’s seat.<div class="blogger-post-footer">Thank you for requesting to receive blog posts from CoreStrategeis for Nonprofits.</div>Terrie Temkin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06115456112406830259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3416041043014084183.post-41747086984580755692011-03-05T22:13:00.000-08:002011-03-05T22:14:12.734-08:00Our Boards Must Understand How They OperateI just finished analyzing a governance assessment completed by 15 different organizations participating in a board building program sponsored by our local Community Foundation. It was fascinating. In many cases there would be one person from an organization that would answer the question in the affirmative about whether that organization had a Whistleblower Policy or a Records Retention policy – policies every organization must have. The rest of the respondents would answer “no” or “I don’t know.” In each of these cases, the executive director/CEO completed the survey along with board members. While I didn’t have the access required to manipulate the data, I’d bet my bottom dollar it was the executive director/CEO that was correctly answering the question because he or she was the one who ensured compliance. Even the answers to questions such as whether the organization employs term limits or a consent agenda revealed that oftentimes more than half the board members did not know if they did or didn’t. <br /><br />While not surprised, I must admit I’m a bit disappointed. Clearly the majority of these organizations are operating according to proven practices, but the board is not aware of it. According to their answers to the question about the ease of getting a quorum, it doesn’t appear the problem lies with nonattendance. It seems as if the chief administrative officer is implementing the right policies and procedures but failing to share this with the board along the way. <br /><br />What is the answer? First, maybe it’s time that the executive director/CEO turn over the implementation of board-related responsibilities to the board. Using the example above, this would mean that the development and dissemination of policies would be done by the board. And, if the board handles the job, the members would know the policies exist.<br /><br />Second, perhaps the content of board education should be changed to focus more on proven practices and how the board complies with such practices. The bylaws committee might mention what section in the bylaws is guiding each action. The board development committee might create more or different talking points or initiate a short quiz at each board meeting designed to test whether the board knows how it is/should be operating. The orientation might be enhanced to ensure new board members understand what is expected and why.<br /><br />Finally, there has to be a better communication. At meetings the board chair might make it a point to explain why certain actions are being taken. Committees might use a report form that spells out how recommendations relate to the organization’s strategic initiatives the budget, staffing and so on. <br /><br />Hopefully, by working together more as a board each member of the board will know exactly how the board operates and why. Ultimately, that has to result in a more effective board.<div class="blogger-post-footer">Thank you for requesting to receive blog posts from CoreStrategeis for Nonprofits.</div>Terrie Temkin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06115456112406830259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3416041043014084183.post-20659349728583018032011-01-29T14:59:00.000-08:002011-01-29T15:03:22.964-08:00Painless GivingBy Terrie Temkin<br /><br />Last month I blogged about three graduate students at Rutgers University that made a life-long pledge to give a significant portion of their incomes to those less fortunate. A common response I got to the post was similar to what the three themselves have heard: “How admirable. But I wonder how long they’ll maintain that pledge once they start having families and facing the everyday responsibilities of a mortgage and car payments? But must these commitments be mutually exclusive? Can’t one still give generously without negatively impacting one’s lifestyle? There are those that would answer a resounding “no” to the first question and “yes” to the second.<br /><br />After posting that last blog, I heard back almost immediately from a colleague, Dr. Donna Goldstein. She wanted to share what she does to make a difference in others’ lives that take little more from her than her time. One idea she presented is that when she goes to the grocery store she takes liberal advantage of the frequent two for one offers, even though she rarely needs the second item. She keeps the one she needs and donates the second to her local food bank. She also haunts the second-hand stores, often finding just the perfect item for her wardrobe or home. She takes the money she saves by not buying new and donates it. On top of the good feeling she gets from that, she enjoys the pleasure of the hunt.<br /><br />My brother, Dr. Larry Temkin, is a Professor II in the Philosophy Department at Rutgers. A moral philosopher internationally recognized for his work on inequality, he lectures on this topic regularly. He tells his students that while some, like Donna, may actually prefer finding something unique at the second-hand store, they can still buy new <em>and</em> make philanthropic contributions, all without necessarily affecting their desired lifestyle. As an example he might suggest that perhaps they have been lusting over a special pair of jeans that cost $150. They are going to buy the jeans, but they just haven’t gotten around to it. Then one day, the jeans go on sale. They pick them up for half off. They were perfectly willing to buy the jeans at $150, but only had to spend $75. They could take the $75 they saved and donate that to charity without taking a dime from the pocket they know they should be designating for charitable giving. <br /><br />On a smaller scale – that does add up – they can become coupon shoppers. Fifty cents here, two dollars there… If they put aside their savings, in short order they will have a full piggy-bank to share with someone less fortunate. Again, it’s all out of money they have mentally already spent, so it seems less onerous than having to come up with “extra” money that they can donate. And, of course, if they are among those that empties the change from their pockets each night and throws it into a can to sit for years and years, they have a ready source of cash that will never be missed.<br /><br />I’d love to hear your suggestions for painless giving.<div class="blogger-post-footer">Thank you for requesting to receive blog posts from CoreStrategeis for Nonprofits.</div>Terrie Temkin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06115456112406830259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3416041043014084183.post-88801299716355423402010-12-22T11:23:00.000-08:002010-12-22T13:03:05.578-08:00What Everyman Can Learn from Student PhilanthropistsI’m an avid NPR listener. For awhile, now, I’ve regularly been hearing a message from the Community Foundation of Broward (Florida) on my local station that goes something like this: <em>Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are encouraging their fellow billionaires to pledge half their fortunes to charity. But why let them have all the fun. You can participate in the joy of giving by making a gift through the Community Foundation.</em><br /><br />I don’t know how well people are responding to this proposition. While I think it’s extremely clever and I hope it’s successful, I’m sure a large number dismiss it, believing that the Gates and Buffets of the world can afford to give half their money away to charity and never even miss it. After all, Gates’ 2010 estimated net worth is $54 billion and most of us assume that one can still live pretty nicely on $27 billion. But for Main Street USA, where, according to the Federal Reserve Board’s 2010 survey, half of Americans have a net worth of less than $84,000, giving away a significant portion of your money to charity doesn’t seem very realistic.<br /><br />Yet, three graduate students at Rutgers University think it’s doable. Philosophy majors Nick Beckstead, Tim Campbell and Mark Lee have made their own significant pledge to give away a set percentage of their annual income to causes that they feel will do the most good in the world – not just over the next few years, but for life. <br /><br />The three say they were influenced by Australian applied ethics philosopher Peter Singer, who holds dual appointments as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. In 1972 Singer published an essay entitled “Famine, Affluence and Morality,” in response to the mass starvation found in Bangladesh. In that article Singer argues that it is a moral imperative for persons of affluence to give more to humanitarian causes than they typically do: "People do not feel in any way ashamed or guilty about spending money on new clothes or a new car instead of giving it to famine relief. (Indeed, the alternative does not occur to them.) This way of looking at the matter cannot be justified. When we buy new clothes not to keep ourselves warm but to look 'well-dressed' we are not providing for any important need." <br /><br />Few would classify graduate students as affluent and therefore individuals to be held to Singer’s standard. But in a December 11, 2010 <em>Wall Street Journal </em>article by Shelly Banjo, “Pledging to Give What They Can,” Beckstead says. "Someone who makes $25,000 is in the top 3% of the world's wage earners." Campbell adds, "It puts things into perspective and makes you realize you're on a much higher ladder than you think." <br /><br />When I read the <em>Wall Street Journal </em>article I was incredibly impressed and began sharing the story with friends, family and colleagues. The responses I got all credited the three for pledging something so admirable. But, almost to a person added that they’d like to follow the three over the next 10 years as they graduate, start to have families and take on obligations for feeding, sheltering, educating and paying health care costs for those families – especially in America, where the costs for such basics are far more than in many other parts of the world.<br /><br />The three have obviously been told this to their face. Beckstead is again quoted in the <em>Wall Street Journal </em>article as saying, "When people see us pledging to give away their income, some are critical and say this is an idealistic idea that they'll realize is unworkable in the real world. We think otherwise; this is a long-term decision." <br /><br />I believe that a clear vision and commitment to that vision are the first steps in actually creating the world we all want to live in. Beckstead, Campbell and Lee have that vision and commitment. Whether or not they move away over the years from the level of financial commitment to which they’ve recently pledged, they undoubtedly will continue to give. And,right now they serve as extraordinary role models. Obviously, they are role models for other young people, who might be influenced to give more of their discretionary funds to charity or even join or start a chapter of Giving What We Can – an organization pioneered in Oxford, England that the three are bringing to Rutgers. But they, probably more than Gates and Buffet, are role models for the rest of us too. After all, if they can make this commitment on a 20-something’s salary, the rest of us should be able to pledge at least a bit more. <br /><br />There is beautiful saying by Leo Burnett, “If you reach for the stars, you may not quite get one, but you won’t come up with a handful of mud either.” Keep reaching Nick Beckstead, Tim Campbell and Mark Lee.<div class="blogger-post-footer">Thank you for requesting to receive blog posts from CoreStrategeis for Nonprofits.</div>Terrie Temkin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06115456112406830259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3416041043014084183.post-86678010629703648682010-11-23T15:00:00.000-08:002010-11-23T15:02:47.301-08:00All the More Reason for Nonprofits to Collaborate…I recently returned from the BoardSource Leadership Forum in San Francisco. BoardSource President and CEO Linda Crompton opened the convening. One of her comments was that innovation is not necessarily an event or a singular killer idea. It tends to be emergent – the result of group interaction. <br /><br />I was not home more than a day before my business partner, Gail Meltzer, send me a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NugRZGDbPFU">YouTube video</a> featuring Steven Johnson who wrote <em>Where Good Ideas Come From</em>. In it, Johnson suggests that true innovation comes from a series of “slow hunches” that build on one another and require time to truly incubate. Most often, he says, it is the collision of idea from others that makes the hunch lurking at the back of one person’s mind actually develop into something worthwhile. He states, therefore, that we must find spaces that will allow people with different ideas to come together and bounce those ideas off one another. He offers the analogy of the coffee houses and salons of the early 20th Century that resulted in such great art and literature.<br /><br />If Crompton and Johnson are correct, then the leadership of organizations that focus internally – that is, determining how they can become better funded, attract the strongest board or gain a reputation as the ‘premier organization’ in their field – are actually working counter-productively to that end. Their organizations will never be recognized as exceptional if they don’t innovate. And, as long as they choose to avoid the interactions with the larger environment that lead to the cross-fertilization of ideas, they are doomed to merely doing more of the ‘same old, same old.’ <br /><br />In my mind this means that leaders must create opportunities to meet frequently with their counterparts in a wide variety of organizational entities to dialog about and to piggy-back off of ideas. The entities they choose to meet with must not only be those that are doing similar work, or that share similar visions for the future, but organizational entities that bring very different viewpoints to the table. <br /><br />Obviously, this requires a certain level of trust. Therefore, the convening groups will want some rules of engagement. The guidelines for brainstorming are appropriate here – e.g., to generate as many ideas as possible, to avoid judgment, to allow time for clarification, etc. The most important guideline, however, is adopting an attitude that, once thrown out, an idea belongs to the group as a whole. Any modifications of that idea are for the benefit of the community as a whole. <br /><br />Just think what we could accomplish in our communities if we all took this approach!<div class="blogger-post-footer">Thank you for requesting to receive blog posts from CoreStrategeis for Nonprofits.</div>Terrie Temkin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06115456112406830259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3416041043014084183.post-91941097551933470242010-11-16T20:45:00.000-08:002010-11-16T21:00:36.058-08:00Study on Women Donors Presents Lessons for Board RecruitmentA study(1) released this week by the Women’s Philanthropy Institute at Indiana University’s Center on Philanthropy showed that women are the largest donors. They give more in actual dollars and they give more frequently than men. This is a reality that holds true regardless of the women’s own economic status; and, the disparity of giving increases with the individuals’ income. For instance, 35.2 percent of women who earn $23,509 or less annually make charitable contributions, opposed to 27.5 percent of men who earn at that same level. When income rises to at least $103,000, 96 percent of women give to charity, while only 75 percent of men of similar means give. The results, culled from a sample of 8,000 American households, also revealed that women typically give because they care about the work that is being done. Men tend to give because they are asked. <br /><br />This study is already shaking up many who have traditionally turned to powerful men in the community for large financial commitments. However, it should also shake up those who are recruiting for boards of directors. According to the Urban Institute study, “Nonprofit Governance in the United States: Findings on performance and accountability from the first national representative study,”(2) while women make up almost half of all boards in the US (46 percent), they tend to be found on the boards of smaller organizations – typically organizations with budgets under $100,000. The percentage of women serving on the largest (budgets of $40 million plus), most prestigious boards is only 29 percent. <br /><br />One reason for the above may be that, according to Ostrower’s findings, women often do not make the cut when organizations use financial skills and reputation in the community (“affluence and influence”) as recruiting criteria. If board members are expected to be among the biggest and most committed givers, the Women’s Philanthropy Institute’s study should cause us to question whether organizations are shooting themselves in the foot when they actively solicit more men than women.<br /><br />Perhaps of even more import is the difference the study found in why people give. Will Brown’s work (3) shows that belief in the mission is the most important factor related to board performance. Conversely, Candace Widmer (4), in a now classic study, found that joining a board because a friend asks is a temporary incentive and provides neither ongoing rewards nor participation. So, unless the organization is quickly able to provide these board members with other, more meaningful incentives, they will not stay involved. Does it not make more sense, therefore, to recruit those who are already motivated by what the organization is doing? We now know empirically, this means recruiting more women with a demonstrated interest in our organization’s mission.<br /><br /><br />________<br />1) Mesch, Debra. “Women Give 2010.” The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, 2010<br />2) Ostrower, Francie. “Nonprofit Governance in the United States: Findings on performance and accountability from the first national representative study.” The Urban Institute, 2007<br />3) Brown, Will. Presentation at the Midwest Center for Nonprofit Leadership Conference, “Boards in Uncertain Times: Exploring the implications of financial, technological and generational change for nonprofit governance.” April 2009.<br />4) Widmer, Candace. “Why Board Members Participate.” Journal of Voluntary Action, 1985<div class="blogger-post-footer">Thank you for requesting to receive blog posts from CoreStrategeis for Nonprofits.</div>Terrie Temkin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06115456112406830259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3416041043014084183.post-75555646125634835702010-09-30T19:58:00.000-07:002010-09-30T20:06:12.049-07:00CEO’S ARREST SHOULD BE NOTED IN THE MINUTESQ: Our CEO was recently arrested for a hit and run that resulted in some property damage. The situation made the newspapers. While the incident itself has been both legally resolved and handled internally in executive session, the board is divided about how to record this in our minutes. Some feel the issue should be dealt with head on. Others would prefer to merely indicate that a personnel issue was discussed and so noted in the individual's file. There is a concern that we may be exposing ourselves to a charge of libel by naming the CEO as the person discussed. How private are such personnel issues? <br /><br /> A: I’m sure a lot of people out there are breathing a sigh of relief that they don’t have to deal with your situation. But, the reality is that this could happen in any organization at any time. CEOs are people and people can get into messy situations. What you’ve shared happens more often than you might think. <br /><br />The privacy issue you raise actually varies from state to state, so you should definitely consult a lawyer in your community. Assuming, though, that this is not a concern where you live, let me offer some other important issues for your consideration. <br /><br />Normally, I subscribe to the “less is more” school of minutes. However, in this particular instance, where there was a serious offense, an arrest, it made the papers and led to some sort of restitution, I think you have to be more explicit than “a personnel issue was discussed and so noted in the individual’s file” – unless, the board opted to do nothing about it. In that case, as a colleague of mine suggests, you want to bury the subject by making any notation in the minutes as weak as possible.<br /><br />A critical question that should play a role in your decision-making is, “Did the hit and run occur while the CEO was on organizational business?” If so, your response must be stronger than if it did not. But, in either case, my concern is that donors and other supporters undoubtedly read about the incident – especially if your organization is a prominent one and/or your CEO is a fairly public figure. They will question whether and how the board acted on this. If they can’t be confident that you took this seriously and acted in a responsible manner, they may doubt the board’s ability to steward the organization during challenging times. This could lead them to jump ship. <br /><br />There should be no exposure to a libel charge as long as you stay with the facts and avoid anything that is supposition, since libel requires misrepresentation. (Just a reminder for other organizations that may find themselves in a similar situation, an arrest is not a conviction.) Actually, according to Steve Nill, a lawyer I consulted on this matter, the more public a figure your CEO is, the less you have to worry because that person would have to prove you acted maliciously – that is, that you knowingly included false information in the minutes.<br /><br />To protect both the board and the organization, though, I would also call your insurance company. Tell your claims representative about the situation. Often insurance companies require that they be notified so that they are not surprised if someone decides to sue. But even if your company doesn’t require such notification, the representative may have some excellent suggestions for proceeding forward at this time. Some insurance companies will even provide you with legal counsel to help you avoid potential pitfalls. <br /><br />One last thought… If you don’t have crisis management policies already in place, your board should run, not walk, to grab its collective pen! It is especially essential to have a plan for dealing with personnel issues like this that have the potential for becoming public, because unfortunately, as I indicated at the beginning, incidents like this or embezzlement of organizational funds, sexual harassment, and child pornography – to name just a few – tend to crop up more often then we’d care to admit. And they can leave the organization with serious egg on its face. <br /><br />The plan might be to sweep any such incidents under the rug (Not my recommendation, by the way!), wait for the media to find you and pray that they don’t, or get out in front of the incidents with the media. If you decide to speak out, the plan should indicate who will serve as the voice of the organization. The plan is a good place to consider consequences for wayward individuals, as well. It’s always easier to decide these things in the abstract, when the emotions tied in with any specific individual are not at play.<br /><br /><br /><br /><em>A special thank you to Stephen Nill, J.D., GPC. and the founder/CEO of CharityChannel.com, for his added insights to this response. <br /><br />Note should be made that even though an attorney was consulted in the construction of this answer, the above should not be construed as legal advice. Questions such as these are sent with minimal information and the answers are necessarily broad.</em><div class="blogger-post-footer">Thank you for requesting to receive blog posts from CoreStrategeis for Nonprofits.</div>Terrie Temkin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06115456112406830259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3416041043014084183.post-12218781448169657922010-08-26T10:33:00.000-07:002010-08-26T10:35:49.243-07:00Who Should Facilitate the Exit Interview?The other day a respected colleague and good friend, Carol Weisman, sent a copy of her latest blog post entitled, “<a href="http://carolweisman.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/exit-interviews-for-board-members/">Don’t Just Whack’em and Plaque’em: Exit Interviews for Retiring Board Members</a>.” As all of Carol’s writings, it dealt with an important subject, was informative and had me in stitches – Carol is one of the smartest and funniest people I know. She spoke to the value of doing an exit interview and shared five excellent questions to use in such a situation. My only quarrel was that she put the responsibility for doing the exit interview on the executive director. I have always believed an exit interview should be conducted by the board, in the person of the chair or a member of the governance/board development committee.<br /><br />She and I went back and forth with our arguments. She felt that the executive director is the constant – the one who will be there after the entire board turns over. I reasoned that there is no guarantee that the executive director will be there tomorrow, let alone years down the road. I know too many organizations that make that position a revolving door. But even in the most stable organizations, a lot of long-time executive directors are reaching the point where retirement is starting to look pretty good. We’re also starting to see a number of less fortunate dying with their boots on. <br /><br />Carol asked me to honestly examine how many boards step up to the plate and take on this responsibility. While I concede that the job often defaults to the executive director, by accepting that role, the executive director makes it that much easier for the board to abdicate its responsibility in the future. It is the board that benefits most from learning what it could/should be doing differently to maximize, or at least improve, its directors’ experiences. The interviewer should be taking notes that can be kept in a board book for easy referral by future boards. Carol argued that future boards won’t bother to look back. I of the “you get what you expect school” retorted that debriefing should be an expected part of the job. After heating up cyber-space for a couple of days, we agreed to disagree.<br /><br />However, I was like the store clerk who gets in an argument with a customer. Long after the customer leaves, the clerk is whining about that customer to everyone else she comes in contact with that day. I ran the arguments by another colleague, Jane Garthson. Jane said definitively that it was the board’s job to conduct exit interviews. However – sneaky devil! – she said she understood if an executive director wanted to conduct his or her own exit interview to learn what he or she might do differently in the future. So, this brings me to the question of the day. What, if any, are the arguments that we are all missing? If you even agree that exit interviews for departing board members are valuable, who do you want to see facilitating them? Why?<div class="blogger-post-footer">Thank you for requesting to receive blog posts from CoreStrategeis for Nonprofits.</div>Terrie Temkin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06115456112406830259noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3416041043014084183.post-82119246536869824622010-07-26T18:52:00.000-07:002010-07-26T18:54:05.563-07:00Should Board Members’ Contributions Be Designated To Pay For Their Education?I was speaking with a couple of colleagues the other day and the subject of board contributions came up. Later in the conversation we transitioned into the importance of ongoing board education and organizations building a sufficiently-large line item into their budgets for this. And then the idea bubbled up: What if one of the expectations of board service was that a portion of each board member’s personal contribution to the organization went to pay specifically for board education? <br /><br />Such an expectation would do several things. It would communicate to the world that the organization believes an educated board is important. It would provide necessary dollars for such board education, without cutting into dollars dedicated to programming. And, it would help board members value the education the organization provides, because research affirms that people ascribe more value to something for which they pay rather than get for free. <br /><br />There are some issues to consider. When my colleagues and I were talking, someone arbitrarily threw out $500 as the portion of each board member’s contribution that would go into this board education fund. While a substantial amount, with an average-sized board of 16, that only puts $8000 into the education coffer. True, $8000 is more than most boards currently devote to board education. But, $8000 won’t go far if the money is to be used for a true retreat, conference expenses or coaching, for instance. Asking for a number larger than $500 might be a non-starter for most boards – at least at this stage in the game. And, what happens in those organizations that ask for a personally meaningful gift from each board member instead of a contribution of a specific dollar amount? Yes, the leadership could opt to allot the entire board member contribution to its education fund, or designate a percentage, but how can any organization create an education budget if the ultimate total is an unknown? Perhaps the answer is that the board would still have to assign to the board education line a dollar amount from its general operating funds and use the contributions just to enhance its educational opportunities.<br /><br />The biggest issue may be that some people will resent this set-aside, either out of principle or the belief that they do not need education – perhaps they’ve sat on many boards over the years and believe they have the job down pat. My guess is, though, this reality may be off-set by those that clamor to join a board that devotes so much attention to its board members and provides leadership training that they can then take back to their jobs or on to other organizations.<br /><br />As someone who firmly believes in ongoing board education at every meeting, I love what this concept could “buy.” But I recognize it would require a major culture shift in most organizations. What do you see as the pros and cons? Is this an idea with sufficient value to push?<div class="blogger-post-footer">Thank you for requesting to receive blog posts from CoreStrategeis for Nonprofits.</div>Terrie Temkin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06115456112406830259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3416041043014084183.post-54692582906348378072010-07-15T08:35:00.000-07:002010-07-15T09:13:53.231-07:00Should US Nonprofits Adopt a Patron System?I worked recently in Singapore. While I found many similarities in the ways nonprofits do business both there and here in the United States, I found differences as well. One of the biggest was their use of a patron system. Besides having what we would consider the familiar board structure with a chairman or president at the helm, a large number of organizations there also have a patron. Some even have a patron and a patron in chief. These are powerful individuals who wield tremendous influence. For instance, the patron in chief of Singapore’s Lyric Opera is the President of the Republic of Singapore. Its patron is the Minister for Education and Second Minister for Defense. The intent is that these individuals will provide support – including, in many cases, political clout – and encourage others to support the organization as well. <br /><br />In the United States, our honorary boards could be considered the closest equivalent to the patron system of Singapore. Some organizations here are able to engage major players, such as the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Foundation which counts among its trustees James Baker, Dick Cheney, Alan Greenspan, Henry Kissinger and Donald Rumsfeld. But the number of organizations with the capability of attracting names of this caliber are far and few between. Would it be easier for nonprofits to attract a single patron? Would a patron help nonprofits that feel they lack sufficient access to affluence and influence?<br /> <br />I do believe that it would be easier to find a single patron than an honorary board. However, I do not believe that it would necessarily be easy. Think of all the nonprofits that have tried unsuccessfully to find a celebrity spokesperson. And, we certainly know how quickly a good name can become a liability. Tiger Woods, anyone? Singapore has experienced this with the patron system as well. The patron of their National Kidney Foundation, the wife of Goh Chok Tong, former Prime Minister of Singapore and current Chairman of the Central Bank, was forced to step down after defending the pay of the CEO, saying that his $600,000 (S) salary was “peanuts.” At least with an honorary board, one would hope there will be others whose reputations remain sterling, even if one of the names on that board turns bad.<br /><br />As to whether having a patron would be helpful to organizations lacking affluence and influence...I'm not so sure. Singapore is a very small country. People tend to know one another and a patron's name alone carries clout. Here, the individual would have to be willing to actively <em>use</em> his/her influence on behalf of the organization to bring others along. Research done by Herman and Renz suggests that this does not happen as often as nonprofits hope. Besides, the reach of a single individual versus a larger group is necessarily limited, especially in a country the size of the United States.<br /><br />So, even though I believe nonprofits in the United States can learn much from their counterparts in other countries, I'm not so sure I'd suggest our turning to a patron system here. But, I’m curious as to what others think. Is such a system an answer for us, especially in these difficult times?<div class="blogger-post-footer">Thank you for requesting to receive blog posts from CoreStrategeis for Nonprofits.</div>Terrie Temkin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06115456112406830259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3416041043014084183.post-54550455329886483762010-07-02T07:51:00.000-07:002010-07-02T07:57:15.803-07:00So You Think Your Communications Officer Isn't Important . . .<p><br />Just this year an illustrious professional career ends abruptly; a world-wide brand that spent millions of dollars over the years to build a sterling reputation, out in front of every one of its competitors, watches its status unravel; and an international conglomerate faces an industrial disaster and its iconic acronym stands to represent its biggest nightmare.</p><p>General Mc Crystal within a week – retired; Toyota within a month massively discounting cars and invigorating the US auto industry; and BP within a few days becoming the company formerly known as British Petroleum now known as BP -- Biggest Polluter. </p><p>Companies that have allocated enormous dollars to building a public face . . . the military and multinationals. And yet with their considerable resources, both financial and professional, they did not understand how quickly their reputation could unravel. How quickly their public profile could be tarnished and how extensive the damage could be. </p><p>Are you ready for this? Do you have the resilience to survive? It begs the question that as nonprofits perhaps we need to reconsider how we court the press. How important we think it is to be on TV or in print. Can we control our message more effectively using social media and web based outreach.</p><p>So you’re thinking of promoting your organization in the press anyway. Then be prepared. When you’re pitching a story, an interview or sending out a release do you know enough about the background of the reporter and the media outlet. Have you read enough of their prior stories or seen enough of their broadcast reporting to have an understanding of the nature and tone of their coverage? What is their writing style, do they have a personal agenda and does your message fit into that agenda. If not, beware – their agenda may take precedence over yours!</p><p>Are you prepared for a crisis? Do you have a communication’s plan that specifically addresses the conversation that you must have with your constituents the moment something considerable happens that impacts the community you serve.</p><p>Have you designated a spokesperson and is that person media trained. As a nonprofit whose financial health depends on donor participation public relations must be moved to the top of your agenda. Today, let’s ask ourselves could our organization survive a media hit. Then take a critical scan of your communications efforts and the persons responsible for this most important yet very delicate task.</p><p><br />Robyn Fern Perlman<br />Founding Principal<br />CoreStrategies For Nonprofits, Inc.<br /><br /> </p><div class="blogger-post-footer">Thank you for requesting to receive blog posts from CoreStrategeis for Nonprofits.</div>Robyn Fern Perlmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14740809605875660451noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3416041043014084183.post-35920892106691313862010-05-26T21:22:00.000-07:002010-05-26T21:24:31.106-07:00DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRAM REFUSE TO PLAY IN THE SAME SANDBOXQ: In our organization the Program and Development Departments work in silos. What is disconcerting is that they have no desire to work together. Development constantly complains that Program doesn’t share “its” list of donors or turn in required reports. Program complains that Development siphons needed resources from the mission and that its requests and grant proposals unnecessarily add to Program’s work load. A number of us feel this is not the way to do business, but we haven’t been able to convince everyone to play together nicely in the same sandbox. Do you have any suggestions to change the culture here?<br /><br /> A: If it makes you feel any better, the situation you describe is, unfortunately, not that uncommon. However, you are smart to want to change it. People invest in impact and impact comes through effective programming. But, effective programming costs money. The greater divide between Program and Development, the less successful Development can be in bringing in the dollars that will support the program. <br /><br />While there is no single or easy answer, there are a few things I suggest trying. All start with the organization’s vision for the community. I would bring the <em>entire</em> staff together to affirm both the picture of how the community will be different – better – as a result of the organization’s efforts, and the staff’s commitment to achieving that vision. Sometimes, merely reminding people of what they are working toward and that everyone shares the same goal will be sufficient to get them to work more cooperatively.<br /><br />If it is not, I might ask each department to consider its role in turning the vision into reality. Specifically, for what steps must it be responsible if the vision is to be actualized? What conditions will it have to meet? What resources – monetary, human, physical, etc. – will the department require to accomplish each step? Once these questions are answered, each department will have a better idea of what it can do on its own and what it needs help to accomplish. Usually people realize rather quickly that they have to go outside their department in order to achieve their goals, again making them more willing to work together. <br /><br />Of course, you can always acknowledge the divide you see, bring the bickering departments together and have them take turns asking each other why given procedures are in place or why certain information is requested. Insist that the group that asks the question really listen to the response! Allow people the opportunity to clarify the answers they heard. Only at that point, give members of that group a chance to share why they find the requirement unnecessary or onerous. Let them offer alternative approaches. Then, open the floor for discussion.<br /><br />If you still face resistance after all this, ask the departments to take this next step. Give them pads of Post-It notes in two colors. Designate one color to represent the resources – both tangible and intangible – the department needs. Designate the other color to represent the resources the department has. Have each department begin jotting down resources – one per page. With the resources the department has available it is important to list all the assets, not just those it has that it has determined it will need to accomplish its own goals. Post these on a wall gallery-style, where representatives from each department can come by and see if any other department has the resources it needs. Be sure to note in some way which asset came from which department – e.g., by writing the department’s name on each page or by placing the pages on the wall under an identifying banner. In most cases, the needed resources will be available in-house. This opens yet one more avenue for collaboration between departments. <br /><br />There may still be some additional resources required by one or more of the departments. You can have representatives from each department sit down and discuss who they know in the community that might have the needed resources. Based on the answers, they can then discuss who from within your organization might have an established relationship with that individual or organization and could make the ask. Such an approach emphasizes the “we’re all in this together” attitude that is so important. <br /><br />These simple exercises remind everyone that they are each a part of something larger than just their own department and that they owe it to the community to cooperate with anyone – internally or externally – that can help them meet that commitment to the community. The discussion of who or what organization(s) outside their own institution might be able and willing to contribute resources acts as a not-so-subtle reminder that if others outside their organization are willing to work selflessly with them, there is no room for department-centric feelings within the institution. <br /><br />The culture in your organization will not change overnight. Departments will have to be encouraged to share the results of their efforts with the other departments so everyone can recognize the impacts being made. The organization’s leadership will have to share organization-wide outcomes with all the departments and recognize and reward the sharing of resources. But, over time, the silos will begin coming down.<div class="blogger-post-footer">Thank you for requesting to receive blog posts from CoreStrategeis for Nonprofits.</div>Terrie Temkin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06115456112406830259noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3416041043014084183.post-44931134822364245812010-05-15T15:36:00.000-07:002010-05-15T16:59:53.738-07:00I'm Not Moving, I'm StuckSo we're stuck. Why does it seem that "stuck" although not unique to the nonprofit sector seems intractable in many nonprofit organizations. Why is it that we artfully craft mission and vision statements that reflect our desire to change communities, change outcomes and change the world yet we refuse time and again to change the business of our organization. <br /><br />Neale Donald Walsch known for his "Conversations With God," series discusses change in his most recent book, "When Everything Changes Change Everything." Walsh writes, "If when everything changes, you wish to change everything, the first thing you may wish to change is your idea about why change occurs." He continues by suggesting that, "change occurs because of who you are and why you are here." Is it not appropriate for us as leaders, donors and beneficiaries of the programs and ideas pushed out through our nonprofit organizations to ask the same question from a business perspective. Who are we and why are we here ... now ... today and into the future. <br /><br />"Change occurs because you want it to occur," says Walsh. "Everything that changes, changes at your direction." His also suggests that until we become conscious of this change it may manifest itself through a silent shift. This shift, as a response to circumstances, instinctly begins to set change in motion so that, hopefully, we become aware and can successfully grow and adapt. How many times have we squashed the incubation of silent shifts in our organizations rather than picking up the mantel of change. How often are we given an opportunity to change, at our own direction, but we remain stuck.<br /><br />Walsh describes life as being functional. When life moves too far off functionality it "puts in place an adaptaton . . . which assures that life remains sustainable." But not just as it was but rather "through it's new changed form . . . " <br /><br />So I ask how will nonprofits remain sustainable and fullfull their promises if the calls to action are merely drowned out by, "I'm not moving, I'm stuck!<div class="blogger-post-footer">Thank you for requesting to receive blog posts from CoreStrategeis for Nonprofits.</div>Robyn Fern Perlmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14740809605875660451noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3416041043014084183.post-54547571058027648202010-04-28T20:27:00.000-07:002010-04-28T20:28:48.974-07:00Should We Be Considering Professional Board Chairs?I recently returned from Australia where I facilitated a series of master classes in governance. While the US and Australian systems are similar, there are some distinct differences. One, to which I was introduced this trip, is a trend toward hiring professional board chairs. Though not wide-spread, it is prevalent enough that there are actually companies there that provide such individuals to organizations as required.<br /><br />Clearly, there are advantages to such a concept. You ostensibly get a board chair that is unbiased, skilled and willing to give the time to the job since he or she is getting paid to do it. One would expect that such a person keeps up with the latest governance trends and has a broad perspective from working with different groups – both conditions that can lead to increased board effectiveness.<br /><br />Some of the drawbacks are obvious, but not necessarily insurmountable. One board member complained to me that the professional board chair working in his organization was working with twenty other boards and often came to meetings unsure of which organization’s meeting she was actually at! I would think that far fewer than twenty boards may still be too many for a board chair to handle well. Of course, this is a relatively easy problem to circumvent. The board has an obligation to do its due diligence. A single question would have determined that this woman was over-committed. Still, in an emerging field where there may not be that many qualified individuals available for hire, organizations desperate for leadership may opt to move forward anyway and take their chances.<br /><br />I would be concerned that any board chair for hire actually has the facilitation skills necessary to do the job effectively and is familiar with today’s proven governance practices. I meet a lot of people who tell me that they have chaired many boards over the years and know what they are doing. Unfortunately, I have observed that far too many of these individuals are mired in how things were done back in the days when they began their board service and are totally unaware of practices common throughout the sector now.<br /><br />I also see the potential for conflict of interest. A professional board chair might work for several organizations with similar missions. While it could be advantageous to hire someone who has a depth of experience in your organization’s mission area, how can you be sure that your ideas, deliberations and decisions will remain in-house until they are ready to be shared with the community? Of course, this could prove an issue with anyone in the boardroom and if you deal with a true professional, this should not be a problem. More critically, the board chair is privy to discussions that can personally impact him or her, for instance whether the contract should be renewed and at what rate. If the organization has policies for dealing with such situations, this also can be handled in a transparent and judicious manner. Australia has the same duty of loyalty requirement we do in the US and conflict of interest has not been a sticking point for the nonprofits in that country.<br /><br />The culture in the US may be the biggest barrier to such an idea taking hold here. I can foresee donors reacting negatively to the idea of having their money go to pay a professional board chair. So many already resent money being spent on even the most critical administrative fees. Link this to the expectation that has taken hold here – but not in Australia – that all board members must make a personal contribution and we have yet another potential obstacle. This expectation would imply the professional must “pay to play,” something that is unethical if not illegal. Yet, if the organization excludes the chair from the requirement, resentment is sure to build in the other board members who are held to the giving standard. They may already be upset, wondering why they shouldn’t get paid for <em>their</em> time.<br /><br />Then, who wants to be the first to test the IRS response? Surely, as paying for a professional board chair is not accepted practice in the US, the board and organization may be liable for a hefty excise tax on that fee if it is deemed excess benefit.<br /><br />Yet, I can’t help thinking about the potential benefit – boards running more efficiently and effectively. Acceptance of such a practice might even stimulate new jobs as individuals with the appropriate skills move into this arena and programs crop up to certify these professional board chairs! <br /><br />Is this a bad idea if no organization is required to move in this direction or consider itself locked into a paid chair if it has used such a service in the past but now has the appropriate leadership in-house? What do you think?<div class="blogger-post-footer">Thank you for requesting to receive blog posts from CoreStrategeis for Nonprofits.</div>Terrie Temkin, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/06115456112406830259noreply@blogger.com0