The Governance Support Model for Nonprofit Boards

Notes by Barbara Rood

 Presenter: Jan Masoaka

 Jan Masaoka asked those in attendance what topics they wanted to hear addressed.  She was disappointed with the smallness of the questions.  “Let’s go bigger and deeper”, she said.  “Don’t any of you want to know how the paradigm of board governance has changed in the last 20 years?” 

 Recent reforms in the profit sector are copying what is already in place for the nonprofit sector.

 Conventional thinking about governance says that boards make policy and staff implements it.  Disputes then develop over what is a policy.

 The board “passing the budget” is usually just ritual behavior, not meaningful financial oversight.

 John Carver’s governance model uses a system of executive limitations.

 Jan prefers the “dashboard” model—staying focused on the dashboard, top level, indicators. 

 The Executive Director (ED) is responsible to ensure the board governs.  Ask, “What can I do to make the board more effective?”  ED must recruit a good board partner to lead; it takes two to be good together!

 The board governs as a board, but supports as individuals.  The board develops a financial plan for viability, but the individual directors have a responsibility to support it.  Divide the agenda into two parts—governance and support—to differentiate the two roles.  Whatever the revenue plan is, board members need to be involved in supporting it.

 What is the best use of the board’s time?  To talk about the two big things that will happen this year, not to listen to staff or board committee reports.  Expect every member to speak at every meeting.  Actively encourage the reticent and ask the frequent speakers to allow others to speak.  Affirm the richness of dissension.  Encourage the presentation of contrarian views, especially in times of agreement.  Ask for disagreement to be respectful and calm.

 How to make boards powerful and influential?  Find ways to build respect internally; build cachet!  Ask, “When did you feel effective as a board member?”  Answer often is, “When something said or done influenced the direction of the organization.”  Board members should be as knowledgeable as staff in some way.  Put board members in front of the public.  Put in the board notes:  agreements on what the board will do as a whole and what individual members will do.

 Be sure to do due diligence on board members, including background checks and references.  Be up front when recruiting:  say why someone is asked onto the board and clearly spell out the expectations. 

 Contrast difference with profit and NP:  for-profits fire people; nonprofits rarely do, they are too “nice”; they just change the process to isolate the irritant.

 Focus on ends, not means.  The board can hold ED and staff accountable for meeting budgets, with specific revenues or expenses.  The board should look at decision models produced through staff research and analysis.  The board can hold staff and ED accountable for results; if results are not adequate, action is needed, even firing.

 Smaller organizations are not just mini-bigger organizations.  They are different in important ways.  Ask “What will work for us?  How will we do it?”

 Everybody doesn’t have to do everything, but everybody does have to do something!

 The planning process:

            Good to develop ideas and plans

            Critical to bring people into alignment.