Interesting article in today's New York Times highlighting the plan by a few players who are committing a week of their paycheck to benefit the retired and "damaged" players of the NFL.  This effort reflects what these players claim to be the cheepness of the League which commits a small amount of their earnings to retired players.  Basically, a bunch of big beefy and talented gladiators are effectively put aside when they have lost in the ring and other players are saying they themselves should care and act 'cause the ring owners don't.

But, is this just a press move or passion?  And how much should the public care.  They pay for pricey tickets to see the shows.  Haven't they done their part? 

More importantly, what about all the folks out there who do the support work that make these events even possible -- grounds keepers, maintenance workers, garbage and food details, ticket sellers -- who looks out for them after the game? 

Finally, these big, beefy talents can't claim they don't know the risks of the sport when they sign up.  No more can teenagers who today start smoking claim they don't know the risks (it's way more clear today than 25 years ago). 

My empathy button is off.  If players want to give up a week of pay to support players, go do it.  Charity begins at home.  But be reminded of all the others who's whole life salary will come nowhere near a week's pay.  What are you going to do for these folks?

Oral Roberts University, with $70 million coming its way soon, has a chance to pursue the revival track thanks to a donor who, true to venture philanthropy ways, is also requesting two family member seats on the university's board of regents.

So, clearly this is a donor who has a vision for an institution that has gone astray.  Good for the university and good for the donor but really -- the world needs Oral Roberts University?  And, the $70 million isn't going that far given that the University is $50+ million in debt and getting ready for a long legal battle over getting back some of the mis-spending of Dr. Roberts' son not to mention trying to hold its head up with a whole lot of donors who can't help but think that their trust is broken beyond repair.

Certainly the donor is right to bargain for a couple of seats but this is a board of regents that has failed miserably and the next best step, if revival is indeed possible, should focus on replacing the regent membership with competent, trustworthy individuals who can be counted on to pursue mission vigorously and with high standards.

On the other hand, should a donor have a right to bargain?

When a nonprofit (or any board for that matter) loses trust in its executive, that executive must be replaced and the Board does well to air the laundry so that that non-profit's constituents don't lose trust in it. 

Yup, that's the lesson borne out in this week's firing of the Red Cross exec of six months.  The nonprofit ED had an affair or some type of relationship with a staffer.  

And you know, a relationship in the office can maybe be OK between peers but an in-office relationship with the CEO establishes way too many unequal power dynamics that just cannot work for an office.  The Red Cross ED failed to recognize or act like he understood this reality.  This failure begins to introduce the question of how well and much the board should trust the ED's ability to make important decisions.  That trust is, in the end, what must be weighed by the whole board in understanding next steps.

The Red Cross board must fully and deeply trust its Exec to ensure that mission is accomplished.  When that ED exhibits that he/she is not 100% trustworthy, that board must act in its and the organization's best interest.  The Red Cross board has acted responsibly and the public should be grateful and appreciative and most importantly, can begin to put their trust back in an institution which certainly has not proven its own trustworthiness over the last few years.

Good going Red Cross Board of Directors!

Interesting article in yesterday's Washington Post about the National Youth Rights organization that is focused on getting age restrictions exchanged for competency restrictions of the under 21 folks.

Overal the concept is great and sound.  However, what most caught my eye was a little detail noting that the national organization has high school students seated as members of the organization's board. 

Perhaps this is a lesson and perhaps a warning of caution.  Many nonprofits, especially those serving youth, have always been uneasy seating youth on the board.  They often find alternative methods for seating them so they have a programming voice but not a fiduciary voice.  And here lies the rub.

Can a youth, with few legal recognitions, really serve as a fully fiduciarily responsible board member?  Can they live up to the duties (I believe they can) and be held fully responsibly particularly if the organization does bad things when the "system" doesn't acknowledge them as "owners".

Questions to ponder....

The Antioch University Board of Trustees and Antioch College Alumni Association have decided that Antioch College is not over -- or at least the originally planned suspension of operations is not over, for the meantime. 

To me Antioch College is an interesting case in mediocre governance, particularly in defining who is responsible for determining mission, policy and practice when the college ethos is to engage all in this work and "all" don't agree.  There are also lessons to be learned about being strategic when it comes to raising money and giving a college a solid economic footing.

Meanwhile, it's reconstruction time and the board and Alumni Association have teamed up to make everything OK.  A recent letter to everyone ever engaged with the college noted that what's next and why can be viewed at the College alumni website, www.antioch-college.edu/Alumni/.

We await the results of this mouth-to-mouth resuscitation.

Today's Wall Street Journal chronicled the demise of the One Laptop Project, an effort to get $100 computer into the hands of millions of students around the world, especially kids who would otherwise never be able to afford the "market" priced tool.

But, just as it should, the introduction of a $100 computer stimulated the  big boys and they too are searching for at least cheaper answers than their current offerings. 

The lesson: the nonprofit fills the "market" void where there is otherwise no incentive or perceived demand.  One Laptop has helped the big guys understand the demand and bring their resources to a market they otherwise devalued.  Thank you One Laptop Project!

Today's New York Times had for me an interesting article on the fact that today and through the Christmas season, 6 circuses will be operating in the City. 

The article more or less introduced the question of "fair" competition 5
"outsiders" invading the Big Apple Circus' (a nonprofit) home turf at one of its most important seasons.

One might alternatively questioned, although the article did not, the "fairness" of having a nonprofit compete in a world where for-profit circuses are doing quite fine, thank you very much.

There is a basic premise that guides the existence/purpose of a nonprofit -- fill the void where there is no incentive by the for-profit sector and no mandate by the public sector.  To strengthen this position, a nonprofit status ensures an income tax exemption to the nonprofit and of course, tax deductible status for gifts.  The idea of unfair competition then enters the fray when nonprofits perform functions where the non profit's tax status offers an edge competitively.

So, should we be worried about the issue as to whether the Big Apple folks can compete with the for-profit, albeit, deep-pocketed circuses visiting on its home turf at an important income-generating time of the year?  Should we not believe that the the Big Apple Circus offering, price and location as well as the way folks hear about its offerings (more through free use of the media but still some paid advertising and promotion (give-aways) PLUS ITS NONPROFIT MISSION should more than enable it to be competitive? 

So, what was the point of the article to begin with AND, is there really a market need for a nonprofit circus?

Here's some thoughts for the rest of us from the New York Times (11-21) pertaining to Goldman Sachs and its intention to establish a Philanthropy Fund.  P.S. I am truly grateful for G.S.' largess.  If there was a more universal commitment to even out the wealth in America, America would not be so poor.

From the chair and chief exec at G.S.: "We know we make a lot of money, and we know that we live in this world and we have a responsibility to give something back."

From a security analyst: "At the two firms I worked at, it was not career-enhancing to not do your bit for society.  There was a noblesse oblige, a sense that you would be generous with your contributions."

From G.S., "We have, as a part of who we are, a very long history of charitable giving.  Think about the people who leave Goldman and go into public service.  They don't become like that  -- they were like that when we recruited them and we retained them."

From a security analyst: "It is better to be charitable than not to be charitable, particularly if you are going to blow the socks off your competition."

From G.S. "It is in the long-term interest of this firm to do good things and not just dress up as if we are doing it.  And we are really doing it."

The New York Times among others reported on Tuesday the 19th that the "Board of Regents voted Monday to undertake a major capital campaign to help raise the $2.5 billion needed to improve and repair its buildings. It is the first large-scale private fund-raising effort in the organization’s history."  According to the article, this is a significant commitment for an institution that to date "gets 70 percent of its $1 billion operating budget from the federal government."

But, the Smithsonian and its Board of Regents (kind of its board of directors -- the caretakers for the public of all that lies within the Smithsonian) have had a hard year with lots of controversy over its chief executive (getting or taking too many perks and too large a salary (not my opinion); governance issues (who does what and for how much and how to report this); and even the acceptance of money for specific exhibits or changing exhibits considering the donor source..... And, to top it off, a fairly gross failure to make ends meet from the revenues generated through a fairly vast and significant ventures strategy.   Will this never end?

At minimum of course, many of these failings and challenges are merely symptoms of a failure to govern well which entails at minimum the development and oversight of good policy, planning and evaluation. 

But, is the Smithsonian too much for any one (nonprofit) board to govern?  Perhaps yes and yet there are those who would argue otherwise -- perhaps the Guggenheim for instance.  But maybe this really is the question the Smithsonian's Board of Regents should ask and answer.  Maybe the Regents' purview is just too much for any reasonable board.  Maybe.....