A colleague of mine recently attended a board meeting of a non-profit organization. As it happens he was a former board member, vice president, and president of that same board in a different era. His remarks to the board were previously prepared, delivered, suggestions made and questions answered. He was there to offer assistance in resolving a major regulatory issue that had been lingering for quite some time. Interestingly, not a single member of the current board was involved with the organization 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 assistance was not welcomed. And, the message was delivered rudely and disparagingly in a public meeting. Other board members sat by and said nothing.

What in the world is this board thinking? Obviously, the members of the board are not thinking at all. And the behavior of its officers is not acceptable.

But the title of this blog post is about the issue of Accountability.

Let’s see, this board seems to have pretty well missed it on all counts: unwillingness to accept offers of assistance – particularly when offered by a former (and knowledgeable) board member – would seemingly be welcomed. My experience has been that the inability or unwillingness to accept offers of assistance stems from anxiety, lack of knowledge, and/or the fear that something unpleasant is going to pop out and have to be dealt with. In this case, particularly when the issue is a regulatory one, the board has a legal and moral obligation to its stakeholders (a rather broad group, in this case, since public funds are involved) to at least determine the facts and accept the assistance of an experienced board member.

One can only imagine how that former board member felt – particularly given the fact that all are volunteers. (Is it any wonder why it is difficult to find good board members?)

I fear that this board is not atypical, which is exactly why the federal government is stepping up its oversight of non-profit organizations. When institutional memory is lagging or, as in this case, basically non-existent – and – when a board president does not understand the role of the board and cannot articulate the complete mission of the organization, it is virtually certain that any comprehensive evaluation, compliance audit, or overall assessment of the operation would reveal serious accountability problems.

How many board meetings have you attended where board members seemingly want to just ‘feel good’ or ‘act important’ when they don’t even know the total mission of  the organization – and, worse yet, don’t appear to have any interest in learning? Who controls the board’s accountability? Unfortunately, in my experience, accountability 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 board experiences, accountability must start with self. If a board member is not knowledgeable, willing to learn, spending adequate time in the governance of the organization, or scared to death that some problem might arise that requires work, then that board member is just not board member material. While this seems to state the obvious, it is my opinion that too many of these board members exist. The net result, at a minimum, is that the organization falls short of its potential to meet its mission.

In addition to accountability to self, a board member must be accountable to the organization and its stakeholders. What does that mean? Who does that include? Actually, the list is quite long: employees, vendors, customers/members, fellow board members, the executive director, and (particularly in the case of non-profits receiving public funds) the public itself. The organization may also be accountable to other peer organizations and regulatory agencies (in addition to local, federal, and state governments – and the IRS).

A long-time executive director once asked me a question about a board of directors that was behaving equally as poorly as the board used in this example: he asked, “Who do they think they are serving?” What an excellent guiding principle! A question that certainly deserves answering! Whenever I see board membership listed on a resume, for example, the first thing I want to know is what that person actually contributed to the accomplishments (if any!) of the organization during their tenure on the board.

By the way, the arrogant and dismissive behavior of the president and vice president of the board cited in the above example is unacceptable. In my opinion, it qualifies as a breach of ethics and no such person should be serving on any non-profit board, let alone serving as an officer. The remedy in this case should be resignation because the public trust has been violated. Who would dare offer to assist this board now?

You might wonder why I have not mentioned the executive director in this case…

That’s the subject of my next blog post!