So I have proposed a 3-member fiduciary board that in order to serve must receive certification from a controlling authority. A state’s attorney general would be an appropriate authority, since h/she is ultimately responsible for oversight of a not-for-profit corporation.
I believe this idea has merit and deserves public vetting. As I see it, board authority and competence is essentially unchecked by any external authority. Not only can board members behave any way they want, but if they come under pressure for their actions, they can walk away without any consequences. Try to find another public entity that allows this kind of behavior. I certainly can’t come up with one.
In the mail this week I received my Guild Notes from the National Guild for Community Arts Education. In the Trustees’ Corner section, the board-executive relationship is featured. I quote,
“The legal relationship between the governing board and executive director is one of employer and employee. By law, the executive director works for the board, which has ultimate responsibility for the nonprofit and its assets. In practice, the relationship would be more of a collaborative partnership.”
By law — In practice: there is the problem!
The first bullet point in this newsletter section states, “Help board members understand their roles.” Why should the executive director, who reports to the board, have to teach the board about their roles and responsibilities? It just doesn’t make sense.
I’ll keep this week’s blog short, as I believe I have stated my case. Ranting isn’t sufficient. An action plan is a must.
Leave a Reply