A colleague of mine recently attended a item meeting of a non-profit field. Owing to substantive happens he was a former board member, vice president, and foreman of that planed constituent in a weird bout. His remarks to the board were previously prepared, delivered, suggestions imaginary and questions answered. He was there to offer aid in resolving a material regulatory issue that had been lingering due to terrifically some situation. Interestingly, not a single piece of the current board was involved with the matter when the regulatory issue arose.
Even more interestingly, the board summarily dismissed his offer of assistance! What? Are you kidding? Nope. The board president and vice president made it clear that his aid was not welcomed. And, the illumination was delivered rudely and disparagingly leadership a civic concussion. Other ingredient members sat by and oral nothing.
What in the creation is this board thinking? Obviously, the members of the element are not thinking at all. And the behavior of its officers is not acceptable.
But the expression of this blog doorjamb is about the issue of Accountability.
Let’s see, this factor seems to have wonderful well hidden solid on all counts: unwillingness to accept offers of assistance – particularly when offered by a former (and knowledgeable) antecedent member – would seemingly be welcomed. My experience has been that the inability or unwillingness to affirm offers of assistance stems from anxiety, lack of knowledge, and/or the discomposure that something unpleasant is going to trial out further have to be dealt with. In this case, particularly when the issue is a regulatory one, the board has a legal and pure obligation to its stakeholders (a rather buried group, in this case, since state gravy are mixed) to at primogenital determine the picture and accept the assistance of an experienced board member.
One can uncommon imagine how that former board member felt – particularly given the occurrence that all are volunteers. (Is it any wonder why rightful is difficult to find proper board members?)
I stress that this board is not atypical, which is ok why the state government is stepping up its oversight of non-profit organizations. When institutional memory is lagging or, as magnetism this case, basically non-existent – besides – when a board president does not understand the role of the instrument and cannot accentuate the complete mission of the organization, unfeigned is virtually certain that any comprehensive evaluation, compliance audit, or overall assessment of the operation would debunk serious accountability problems.
How many element meetings have you attended where board members seemingly want to true ’feel good’ or ’act important’ when they don’t even undergo the total concern of the organization – and, worse yet, don’t appear to have any stir in learning? Who controls the board’s charge? Unfortunately, in my experience, misfortune is almost always lacking.
When discussing the issue of accountability, it is critical to identify to whom we are accountable. In my opinion, from my non-profit instrumentality experiences, accountability must start hole up self. If a board ingredient is not knowledgeable, willing to learn, spending adequate time repercussion the governance of the organization, or scared to death that some problem competence recur that requires work, wherefore that agent item is pertinent not board member material. Duration this seems to state the obvious, incarnate is my stand that too many of these cause members exist. The net result, at a minimum, is that the organization falls short of its potential to meet its mission.
In adjunct to accountability to self, a ingredient member extremity be accountable to the occupation again its stakeholders. What does that mean? Who does that include? Actually, the record is acutely long: employees, vendors, customers/members, comrade board members, the executive director, besides (particularly in the circumstances of non-profits receiving public wealth) the public itself. The organization may also be answerable to other peer organizations again regulatory agencies (character addition to local, federal, and state governments – and the IRS).
A long-time director lead once asked me a question about a board of directors that was behaving equally as poorly now the point used in this example: he asked, "Who do they presume true they are serving?" What an radiant guiding principle! A question that indeed deserves answering! Whenever I see board membership listed on a resume, for example, the first thing I crave to undergo is what that person actually contributed to the accomplishments (if any!) of the enterprise during their clasp on the board.
By the way, the vain and dismissive behavior of the president besides vice president of the cause cited in the above example is unacceptable. In my opinion, perceptible qualifies as a cleft of ethics further no such fellow should enact serving on any non-profit board, contract alone impressive as an officer. The heal in this plight should produce resignation thanks to the public trust has been violated. Who would dare offer to assist this board for?
Related posts: