New Online Course: Basic Training for Your Nonprofit Board of Directors

Today I'm very pleased to announce that my latest online course is now available on Udemy: Basic Training for Your Nonprofit Board of Directors.

Some of the things covered in the course are:

• Legal requirements for Nonprofit Boards in the U.S.
• Roles and responsibilities of Board Members
  
• Roles and responsibilities of Board Officers
• Tips for successful meetings, including Agendas and Minutes
  
• About Board Committees
• The Board's role in Fundraising
  
• Board recruitment, training, and evaluation

This course is for anybody who is on a Nonprofit Board, nonprofit staff who work closely with their Boards, or anybody who's simply interested in nonprofit leadership.

You can learn more about the course and register by clicking here.

Reaching Across Generations

How are you involving millenials in your organization's work? This is a question we've all been hearing a lot lately. But I'm not sure that I like some of the answers.

I've been in several conversations and meetings in recent months where the idea of creating a "millenial advisory group" was brought up. It was generally agreed among my peers (those of us between 40 and 65) that the younger generation may not be ready for the responsibility of being on a board of directors.

"Oh, they're too busy with their careers, or starting families, or doing whatever it is they do with their tweet machines..." And yet, everybody nods and agrees that without the active involvement of millenials, their development of new donors and volunteers is dead in the water.

And so, the Millenial Advisory Group. A group of young folk to come up with recommendations for the groups of older folk to consider: a committee to involve millenials without actually having to talk to them directly.

At one recent meeting where this idea was being presented, I turned to the 20-something person beside me and asked, "Does any of this sound at all patronizing to you?" She glanced quickly to each side before giving a quick nod and quietly saying, "A little bit."

The question isn't whether or not you're going to invite millenials to the table. The question is whether you're going to invite them to the adults table in the dining room, or send them off to the kids table in the kitchen.

Instead of a "Millenial Advisory Committee" why not just add a few millenials to your existing Volunteer Outreach Committee or your Development & Communications Committee? And if you don't have any such committees already, maybe that's why your organization is failing to attract new donors or volunteers.

Just a thought...

LinkedIn Launches Board Connect Service

LinkedIn, the social network for professionals of all sectors, has just announced the launch of their new Board Connect service for nonprofit organizations. If you're not already familiar with LinkedIn, it began, basically, as a place to post your online business profile/resume and connect with others in your field to grow your network using a "six degrees of separation" model. Other features and refinements over the years have turned LinkedIn into an essential social network for all professions, including active discussions, groups, job boards, and more.

The new Board Connect uses LinkedIn's "Talent Finder" to help you search for professionals with the skills your organization needs. Likewise, professionals interested in board service can search out organizations that meet their interests. Best of all, the service is free to nonprofits (business use of the Talent Finder can cost $1,000).

So, what could be wrong with all this? Well, in one of those active discussion groups on LinkedIn for Nonprofit Professionals, Michael Wyland (of Sumption & Wyland Consulting) says of the service that "the pitch is off-key and reflects antiquated views of board service." Michael recognizes that the LinkedIn service can be beneficial to the organizations that choose to use it, but, he notes:

"Searching algorithyms can get a nonprofit only so far. ... The 'pitch' in LinkedIn's blog makes no mention of governance, board member obligation, legal exposure, and the duties of board service in an increasingly regulated and scrutinized environment. The days of viewing nonprofit board service as an expression of noblesse oblige and an opportunity to network are fading fast, if not already gone."

Terrie Temkin (of CoreStrategies Consulting) replies, in part, that nonprofits "must still do the hard work to vet potential [board members]." She states that this is true, not just of LinkedIn's new service, but of all board matching programs.

I will agree with Mr. Wyland, and add that the "antiquated view" of board service as noblesse oblige and a social activity not only exists within some board matching programs and the well-intentioned attempts at encouraging board service in corporate circles, but within far too many nonprofits themselves.

When I work with boards, I find there can be a very fine line between those boards where the members are comfortable with each other, share outside interests and relationships, but still manage to accomplish the serious business of governance of the nonprofit corporation, and those boards where their shared social situations and relationships stands in the way of good governance.

Often, the one thing that makes the difference as to which side of that line an organization is on is simply good board training. Nobody has ever gone to these boards and explained what their role is or should be on a legal, fiduciary, and ethical basis. They're not shirking their responsibilities; they've just never been made aware of their full responsibilities.

I will also agree with Ms. Temkin, and add that the process of vetting potential board members is a continuous one. It does not start when a member leaves and a seat opens up, but proceeds according to a plan that includes methods of identifying new recruits, the vetting process, suggestions for other volunteer activities until a board seat is open (non-board members may sit on committees, help with events, etc.), and a process for how the full board votes on and welcomes in new members.

Consultants (such as Mr. Wyland, Ms Temkin, or myself) can help your board with both proper training on roles and responsibilities, and with creating a board development and recruitment plan.

If your organization is interested in LinkedIn's Board Connect, you can learn more about it on the LinkedIn blog here, or go direct to the LinkedIn Nonprofits page here. While you're at LinkedIn, you can join my network through visiting my profile here.

The Five Stages of Nonprofit Board Fundraising

In the 1960s, Dr. Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, working with terminally ill patients, hypothesized her five stages of grief, popularized in her 1969 publication of On Death and Dying. Since that time, the Kübler-Ross model has been applied to just about any form of personal loss, including job loss, divorce, death of a loved one, surviving natural disasters, and even incarceration.

Imagine my surprise when I realized that nobody had yet applied the Kübler-Ross model to fundraising by nonprofit boards of directors! So, here, without further ado, are the Five Stages of Nonprofit Board Fundraising:

1. Denial - "I don't think board members should be required to fundraise." - "I don't know anybody with money anyway." - "I was asked to join the board for my other skills." - "Don't we have staff for that?" - "We're a nonprofit, we're supposed to live on the financial edge!"
   
2. Anger - "My friends will hate me if I add them to the mailing list!" - "If I give myself, why do I also have to 'get'?"- "I give so much of my time, you want my money too?" - "If the staff were doing their jobs, this wouldn't be necessary." - "It's the politicians' fault that we can't raise enough money!" - "I never should have joined this board."
3. Bargaining - "If I serve on the audit committee, can I get out of working on the event?" - "I brought in my old PC for the intern to use, that's worth something, right?" - "How about if I just mention I'm on the board in my family Christmas letter, that'll save you on printing and postage!" - "Tell you what, I know the name of a foundation that makes grants..."
4. Depression - "The economy is going to clobber us anyway, so why bother?" - "We can't compete with all those nationally known nonprofits." - "Nobody really gets our mission anyway." - "There's no point in even asking before the next election cycle, or two..." - "I read in NPQ that even the big guys can't raise any money these days."
5. Acceptance - "Do we have any brochures I can bring to my Rotary meeting?" - "Let me find out about my company's corporate philanthropy policy" - "Hey, if we each commit to just a small amount we can close that budget gap!" - "How can we expect others to spread the word and raise money for our cause if we're not willing to do it ourselves?"

As Dr. Kübler-Ross wrote, not everybody passes through all five stages, and they don't always progress in this order. Frequently people get stuck in one stage or another. Do you know any board members who are stuck on denial or anger? Of course you do: every board has these people. The important thing is to recognize the stages, and help your board move along to Acceptance and Success.

Boardroom Musical Chairs

At lunch with a group of consultants a couple of months back, we were lamenting the tendency of certain local organizations to fill their empty board seats by simply bringing on the termed-out board members of closely-linked organizations. In this scenario, as positions open up, a director will typically say, "What about so-and-so? I know her from board X." And so on, as our boards shuffle around in very small circles.

So, what's wrong with this? We recycle everything else, why not our boards of directors?

Yes, we get new members with experience serving on boards this way, but we never seem to question the depth or value of that experience. When we only recruit within our existing circles, we don't open up our boards to new ideas, new connections, and a broader range of experience.

Adding like-minded, friendly board members, who we already know, will never challenge us to consider different points-of-view, other ways of looking at the problems we face, or force us to take an honest look at our organization's practices.

Many people are drawn to serve on a nonprofit board of directors because of the social experience. We enjoy working with our friends on an issue that is close to our hearts and is important to our community. We feel it strengthens our friendships, and brings meaning to these pre-existing social relationships. And, indeed, boards of friends may be less likely to miss meetings, and might challenge members to work harder lest they lose face in front of their peers.

But there's also the very great danger of group-think. Amongst one's friends, one is less likely to speak out against a seeming popular decision. Peer pressure, and not wanting to seem out-of-step, makes yes-men and women of too many of us. The fear of harming the personal relationship makes us timid in our professional responsibilities.

Many organizations use web-based services like VolunteerMatch or BoardNetUSA to find new directors. Others advertise for board members the same as they'd do for any open staff position. Local board training and recruitment programs can often be found within chambers of commerce, community leadership programs, or nonprofit resource centers. Recently, I received an email from a national organization I belong to, asking for board nominations from among their entire membership.

So, what about your organization? Are you recycling board members within your circle of the usual suspects? Or are you actively developing new sources of recruitment? I'd love to have your comments below on where you are finding new blood for your board.

The Engaged Board Member

Here's a bit from a twitter exchange between @npmaven, @alexandrapeters, and @GailPerrync:

"A perpetual question! ... but I always wonder, what does "engaged" mean for a board?"

Unfortunately, my answer takes a little more than 140 characters, so it will have to be a blog post.

My first thought on "engagement" is that it is demonstrated by involvement beyond speaking up at board meetings: committee work, volunteering for tedious tasks (envelope stuffing anybody?), sending out minutes on time...

But that's simply activity. To some extent, it's busy work. Engagement goes beyond that, to less tangible, but far more critical, elements.

For board members to be fully engaged, they should not just care about the organization, but about the cause. The nonprofit's mission must be something that touches them. Even if they weren't on your board, they would still be reading articles about the issues you work on, and discussing them with their friends, and doing so in a way that demonstrates both knowledge and understanding.

An engaged board member doesn't need to be asked twice to solicit their friends for a donation, and doesn't shrink and hide when asked to speak to the press or elected officials on behalf of your cause.

The engaged board member is an activist, an advocate, and a leader, as well as a hard worker who shows up on time having read the board packet before the meeting.

What does "engaged board member" mean to you? Post a comment here, or join in the conversation at twitter: I'm there as "NonprofitKenG."

How Many Board Members?

This is a question that came up in a conversation last week, and from time to time; "What is the appropriate size for a nonprofit board of directors?" Related to that question is, "Does it need to be an odd number?" and "Is it okay if we run on fewer for a while?"

The generally accepted number for most small- to mid-sized nonprofits is 9-14 members. Any fewer and you will burn out your members quickly with multiple duties, have difficulty making a quorum when even a couple of people are ill or out-of-town, and you will fail to build in new leadership development into your regular board activities. Many more than that and meetings can get bogged down in side conversations, factionalization, and members will begin to feel that they're no longer contributing or making a difference.

Many larger nonprofits do have large, 30-member boards, but upon closer examination, they're not typically the true governing body. These larger boards serve more in an advisory or fundraising or even just a visibility function, with the real work being done by a more manageable governing or executive board.

Another typical bit of generally accepted knowledge is to keep your board to an odd number of members. This is supposed to help you avoid repeated tied votes on important issues. Personally, however, I feel this is ridiculous advice that misses potentially much larger issues.

First of all, having an odd number of members is no guarantee of how many people are at any given meeting, as there's almost always going to be at least one absence. And, seriously, how many times has your nonprofit board been stuck in a tied vote on an important issue? If it is more than once, I'd say your problems run far deeper than simply having an even number of board members.

Not that every vote should be unanimous - that's an equally dangerous situation to be in, good decisions are made after examining an issue from all sides, and dissent on a board should be welcome. But a board that's so divided as to have frequent stand-offs, preventing decisions from being made, is clearly lacking a strategic direction. And if the board has no agreed upon direction, how is staff accomplishing the mission, if a mission is even agreed on?

The final part of the question usually comes up when the bylaws of an organization specify a number of board members (usually a range, say 10-15), but they currently are either down to four or up to fifteen.

The higher-than-allowed figure may have resulted from a merger, bringing two boards together, or, occasionally, from considerable good luck in recruiting several talented people all at once. The new larger number is okay, if it is recognized. It is important to be operating within your bylaws. To fail to do so could bring trouble later, if board decisions are questioned on legal grounds.

A temporary resolution recognizing the larger number for a specific period of time should do the trick. Or, if you are comfortable with the new number, a permanent change in the by-laws might be warranted.

A lower-than-allowed figure is far more problematic, and like the board with repeated tied votes, likely a sign of far deeper problems that require immediate attention. This board needs to take an honest look at what they're doing wrong. Has the mission become irrelevant? Are the expectations placed on board members too onerous? Is the board leadership out-of-control and chasing good people away? Are other unaddressed issues (poor finances, staff trouble) scaring away the liability conscious? Is the current board simply too overwhelmed with other issues to do any recruiting?

The bottom line here? The rule of thumb is that 9-14 members make a manageable board, just be sure you are operating within your by-laws. Beyond that, large fluctuations in the number, factionalization that impedes progress, and inability to recruit new members are all signs of deeper trouble that needs to be addressed before you will ever accomplish your mission.

How Much Should Board Members Give?

This is the question that has haunted many a nonprofit Executive Director and Development Director. How to encourage Board giving without either asking too little or scaring off new members.

A posting today on the Chronicle of Philanthropy's website asks if "the expectation of giving is something that is simply understood?" and gives a quick roundup of how some organizations answer the question.

The Asian American Justice Center in Washington, asks board members to "either donate or raise $2,500 for the organization - an expectation that is spelled out in their job descriptions."

Gail Perry, a consultant and author in Raleigh-Durham, N.C., says that "Board members will contribute and raise money for organizations that they believe in strongly," and that "They will give the minimum when they 'have' to." Ms. Perry believes that un-engaged Board members will find giving requirements "offensive." "Our job, of course," Ms. Perry goes on to say, "is to get them so fired-up that they are sitting on the edge of their seats ready to ... give."

My experience is that "give or get" policies are popular, but I always encourage my clients to tell their Board that they need to "give and get."

To me, the "getting" is part of their fiduciary responsibility as a Board member to make sure the organization is financially stable and sustainable. The "get" can be done in many ways, from directly asking friends and family, to arranging matching gifts through their employer, to helping plan an event, to writing grant proposals, etc.

The "give," on the other hand, is a recognition of their personal commitment beyond the work. The point I make to Boards is that if they have not personally invested in the organization, why should anybody else? And, I go on, people will know. Perhaps not the average donor, but Major Donors will ask about Board giving, and so will Foundation officers when they come on site visits.

As to how much they should give, I don't believe in stated dollar minimums. Rather, I prefer the phrase, "Board members must give at a personally meaningful level." That means that if a member normally makes $500 gifts to other nonprofits, they should give $750 or $1,000 to the nonprofit they're on the Board of. If they normally give $25 to others, they should give $50 here.

I work with mostly smaller, local organizations, who are particularly timid about the Board member ask because their Boards are more likely to include former clients and neighborhood activists than high-powered international executives and bank owners. An ask that takes ability to give into account, while still recognizing and honoring their commitment to your organization, allows the client representative to give $2 while sitting next to the Doctor who gave $5,000, each knowing they were respected and that they did all they could.

It is up to the Executive Director and Development Director (if you have one) to personally craft the ask, just as you would any Major Gifts ask, based on what you know of your Board member's giving history, occupation, net worth, etc. Explain the "personally meaningful" policy clearly, and ask with confidence.

If your Board member is still reluctant to give, it may be time to question their commitment and start recruiting to fill that seat.

The Board's Role in Supervising the Executive

I get lots of interesting questions by email, and I try to answer as many as I am qualified to give an opinion on. In this case, the sender is looking for your opinions, as well as my own:

Hi, Ken. I have a question for you and your readers. I am wondering about the duty line between Boards and an Executive Director of a non-profit. What is the role of the Board in supervising that E.D.? If there are problems on a regular basis with how the E.D. executes his/her goals and objectives (i.e. things that fall under the auspices of the E.D. and not the board) does the board deal with this as a normal supervisor would (asking for explanations, suggesting or requiring specific solutions?) or does the Board have to stay quiet? - Jenny - Albuquerque, NM

Jenny brings up a common problem; boards that don't properly carry out their duty as the Executive's supervisor.

While it is true that nonprofit boards should have no role in supervising other employees (all staff should report to the Executive Director or subordinate), the ED reports to the board, and it is the board's responsibility to ensure that the ED performs to their contract. That includes the things Jenny mentions (asking for explanations, suggesting or requiring specific solutions) all the way up to the removal of the ED, if necessary.

Equally important, and even more frequently forgotten, is the board's role in supervising a successful Executive Director. When EDs perform well, boards often feel they have met their obligations to the ED. The result is that years go by without a formal annual performance evaluation, and often without a raise, even to keep up with the cost of living.

So, yes, Jenny, the Board (or the executive committee of the board) does need to execute proper supervision and evaluation of the Executive Director - in both bad situations and good ones.

Do any other readers have anything else to add? Please post your comments below!

The End of Board Committees

Let's face it: board committees are usually bored committees, and rarely get anything done unless it's task and time specific, so why not just abolish them?

At least, that's the question being asked in the premier issue of 'Blue Avocado' - the new online magazine for people working and volunteering in the nonprofit sector. The site, directed and edited by Jan Masaoka (my former boss at CompassPoint Nonprofit Services), is "half magazine, half blog, half website" and its "aim is to engage and support the people of community nonprofits, the ones who do the heavy lifting in building social justice and strong communities, and who create and drive the ideas that change our world for the better."

Of the articles in the premier issue, which came out today, the one abolishing board committees really grabbed me as being provocative and helpful at the same time. Of course, you'll never get rid of all committees - nor should you - but with a handful of exceptions, board committees do not need be permanent standing structures, and their business can be better served with ad-hoc task-specific groups.

I see two main benefits right off: providing focus and eliminating burn-out. A project specific task force knows what it must accomplish, and by when it must accomplish it. And, by providing that direction, there's no drift or inertia from month-to-month as nothing seems to happen, making committee members bored, anxious, and fed up with board work entirely.

Check out Blue Avocado at blueavocado.org and sign up for the e-newsletter, register an account (it's free, and allows you to leave comments), and join in the conversation.

What are the critical characteristics a board of directors needs to succeed?

For a nonprofit board of directors to succeed, the number one key ingredient is: Involvement. Boards fail (and, in turn, organizations fail) when board members become disengaged from either the mission of the organization or their role in the governance of the organization.

An engaged board does more than simply show up for scheduled meetings and vote to approve minutes and budgets. Engaged boards partake in vigorous discussions that help shape the vision and future direction of their organization. Engaged boards ask questions of staff and read journals to become educated on the issues their organization is involved in. Engaged boards read and understand monthly financial statements and accept their responsibility for fundraising activities that will ensure the organization's short-term stability and long-term sustainability.

Meetings of involved boards are not boring. They do not consist of only one or two people reading reports. Reports are sent out ahead of time, and members have read them before the meeting. Meetings are reserved for discussion of the reports, and decision making by the entire team. The Chair of an involved board does not dictate what the decisions will be, but rather facilitates the discussion and makes certain that all viewpoints are heard before a vote is taken.

All of this requires that many viewpoints, and many areas of expertise, are represented on the board. Do not recruit all of your board members from the same source, or you're likely to build a chorus of "yes-men" and stagnate under a lack of creativity. Be certain to have board members skilled in finance, marketing, law, and fundraising. Don't be afraid of adding people who will disagree with some of your ideas.

An active and involved board requires a leader who is strong enough to keep discussions on topic and within set time limits, but is also willing and able to put their own ego aside to hear opposing views and new ideas. An active and involved board builds the leadership skills of all its members through assignments on committees and special projects.

The involved board is a successful board. Involved boards never have to cancel meetings because they don't have a quorum. Involved boards lead successful nonprofit organizations.

This question came from Helium.com, where I have just signed up as a writer. You can find this article on the Helium site at: helium.com/tm/660571/nonprofit-board-directors-succeed

Whose Nonprofit? Yours or the Board's?

Many people starting new nonprofits have a strong vision of what they expect the organization to be, and how they want to run it, only to wind up disillusioned or fighting with their board when they realize that nonprofits are cooperative enterprises.

So, whose nonprofit is it anyway? That's the question being asked today on the new "Nonprofit Connectors" blog. While the founder certainly has a strong and major influence, if things are run properly, it is the full board that is the legal holder of the governance power and can sometimes have a different vision than the founder.

But the answer to the question of "whose nonprofit" isn't the founder or the board; it's the public. The board may have the final say, but it is as the official guardian of the public interest that they hold that power. As Nonprofit Connectors writes, "Nonprofits are meant to be publicly funded; therefore, they need to be publicly governed as well."

This is only the second posting from Nonprofit Connectors, but it's a good and important one. They bill themselves as "A place to connect newly founded nonprofits with established ones." Sounds like a good idea to me; I'll be watching.

Joining a Nonprofit Board of Directors: The Why and How of It

(This is another older article that I'm posting to the blog to add it to the archives. This one was written for the January 2004 edition of "The Learning Curve" - The monthly newsletter of the Silicon Valley Chapter of ASTD (American Society for Training and Development).

Perhaps you have had some experience giving your time and efforts to local nonprofit organizations, but find something lacking in the experience. Perhaps you are looking to add a leadership component to your volunteer activities and resume. This article will introduce you to a higher level of community involvement: joining a nonprofit Board of Directors.

As a director you are responsible for setting the organization's mission and guiding it in accomplishing its vision. Legally speaking, you are also the public's eye on the organization, ensuring that it is managed in a fiscally sound manner, and that all funds are used for charitable or educational purposes.

Rewards of Service

These are serious tasks, but Board service also brings with it many rewards. You will have the opportunity to use your special knowledge - be it in marketing, finance, or event planning - in a manner that will help shape the organization for years to come. You will also meet new people who share your interests, since you signed up for the same cause, and earn a true sense of making a difference in your community.

As a Board member you will be asked to participate in some sort of fundraising activity. This scares many people away - we are all a bit nervous about having to ask our friends and family for money - but it needn't be frightening. Your participation could be through inviting people to the annual dinner, or in some other way that eases "the ask."

It's Not About Money

The most important thing to remember in the fundraising role is to concentrate on why you support the organization and not to worry about the money. I have served on the board of a local adoption and foster family agency. I love to tell people about what a great job they do with hard-to-place kids who have been through the family court system and need special assistance, but I never mention money.

While buying my house a couple of years ago, I talked enthusiastically about this organization to my realtor. A couple of months later, she told me that her company wanted to start a grant program and was asking each office to recommend a charity. We were invited to give a presentation that resulted in a $20,000 donation to my organization. This happened because I shared my enthusiasm for the cause first and let the money follow.

First Steps

To find Board opportunities, begin with asking at the organizations you are already involved with, then turn to your professional network to get other recommendations. Your local Volunteer Center may also be aware of boards that are recruiting new members. Typically, the Executive Director and the Board Chair will want to interview you. Use this as an opportunity to ask about the organization. Don't be shy here; as a Director you will be expected to ask probing questions and demonstrate your responsibility.

Assuming the interview goes well, you may have a site visit, then be invited to sit in on a Board meeting. After that, the Board will formally vote on your membership. Be aware that if the Board you are interested in only meets quarterly, there could be a lag of several months between your interview and when you are officially a member. Use this time to step up your volunteer involvement and learn more about the group.

Once on Board

The primary role of the Board of Directors, and the reason why the IRS requires nonprofits to have a Board, is governance. That means that you represent the public in making sure that the organization lives up to its mission and is deserving of tax-exempt status.

You will be reviewing annual budgets, making sure the agency has a sustainable income, and watching that it doesn't spend beyond its means. Additionally, the Board is responsible for hiring and supervising the Chief Executive, and conducting his or her annual performance review.

While these are important and necessary tasks, Board service also offers opportunity for leadership, creativity, and fun. You will be able to help with fundraising ideas and events, brainstorming ways to better serve your community, and know that your involvement is helping a cause you care about in a very real way.

Conclusion

If you are looking for opportunities for professional development, experience with team building and decision-making, and a way to make a long-term difference in your community, joining a nonprofit Board of Directors may be for you. Board membership is a great resume builder that also offers great personal and professional rewards.

Online Resources:

• Joining a Board - BoardNetUSA - www.boardnetusa.org
• Support for Board Members - Board Cafe e-newsletter - www.boardcafe.org

Fundraising Mistakes That Bedevil Boards

At today's monthly meeting of the AFP Silicon Valley (Association of Fundraising Professionals), the guest speaker was Kay Sprinkel Grace on the topic of Fundraising Mistakes That Bedevil All Boards (And Staff Too). Kay is always a wonderful presenter, and this topic - based on her book of the same title - was particularly well received.

The mistakes that Kay identifies, or in some cases popular myths, include:

• People will give just because yours is a good cause,
• Donors are drawn to organizations in need,
• People dislike giving
• "We can't raise big money, we don't know any rich people,"
• Volunteers don't have to give in order to ask others to give - their time is their gift, and
• It is impolite to ask for specific amount.

Kay diffuses each of these myths with anecdotes and humor and shows us to avoid - or remedy - them in our fundraising practice.

Another important mistake for professional nonprofit fundraisers is to ever believe that our education is complete. I always enjoy AFP luncheons, and always learn something. Even when it's a bit of a refresher, it's good to be reminded of some basics and maybe hear it in a different way.

You can learn more about Kay Sprinkel Grace at Transforming Philanthropy (.org) and find her "mistakes" book on Amazon.com

Full Disclosure in Board Recruitment

Liz Heath, executive director of The Nonprofit Center in Tacoma, Washington, has an article in the Tacoma News Tribune advising nonprofits to let future board members in on whole truth.

This seems like it should be such obvious advice, but it is unfortunately necessary. Many times we're anxious to recruit new talent to our boards, so we soft-pedal the requirements and expectations. Worse, we are not honest about the challenges facing our organizations and paint a rosy picture of fiscal health and sustainability that may not be entirely true.

We do the new member and ourselves a disservice when we operate that way. First we surprise them with fundraising responsibilities that they're not properly trained for, then we hit them with budget realities and possible cuts in services. The new member feels they were lied to, and wonders what else is coming around the next corner. Our relationship with this new member is compromised from day one.

On the other hand, a board prospect who was briefed on all aspects of board service - the rewards and the challenges - comes to the first meeting ready to work, and prepared to take on the tough decisions (and maybe write a check).

Nobody likes to be surprised by additional work or questions they have not had time to consider. Proper preparation and full disclosure makes board life run much smoother and is the key to good governance.

Board Member Compensation

The subject of board member compensation came up in a conversation I was having yesterday, and then this morning I came across an article about it in Philanthropy News Digest, "Nonprofit Board Compensation Continues to Spur Debate."

For the organizations that I work with - mostly small to mid-sized community organizations - it would be a shock to find that any of them pay their board members. For many of the largest nonprofits (hospitals, universities, some foundations), however, compensation is considered a requirement in order to "attract the best talent."

My personal feeling is in agreement with Daniel Borochoff, president of the Chicago-based charity watchdog American Institute of Philanthropy,"If a board is not willing to volunteer, why should anyone else?"

I spend a good part of my time emphasizing why every board member needs to commit to making a significant financial contribution to their organization. I can't imagine any scenario where I'd encourage them to ask for a paycheck.

Okay, for a national or regional board I can accept limited reimbursement of travel expenses to an annual meeting, but even then I'd expect most board members to refuse it. For a board where all members are locals, I wouldn't even go along with that level of reimbursement. Such expenses are tax-deductible by the individual members as the cost of volunteering; they don't need to be paid back by the nonprofit that they are supposed to be governing.

What do you think? Am I taking too much of a hard line on this issue? Do you compensate your nonprofit board members? Write to me (email link below) and let me know.

Also see Paid boards spur not-for-profit debate