Due to bandwidth limitations I've had to move my blog. Please visit my new location:

Nonprofit Board Crisis at Typepad.

Thanks!

Diversity on boards makes a difference says John C. Gamboa in his op-ed piece in today's San Francisco Chronicle.

Mr. Gamboa writes his piece in response to Jeffrey Farber's (Koret Foundation) op-ed piece on a pending (California) Foundation Diversity and Transparency Act.

Mr. Gamboa, the executive director of of the Greenlining Institute speaks strongly in favor of the Act citing a number of reasons that the foundation community needs to be held more accountable and more importantly, should be paying out a larger portion of annual incomes.

Of equal interest to this blog is the bill's requirement that "large foundations disclose their board and grant-giving diversity. Mr. Gamboa notes that this part of the bill has "ignited a firestorm of controversy and condemnation from major foundations" who charge that "the proposed law would unleash "diversity police" or promote "reverse" racism."

Community foundations have for years been evaluating the diversity ratios of their prospective grantees as one of the criteria for approving a grant application. The philosophy is simple: a more diverse board, one that reflects the beneficiary of services, will be more responsive and sensitive. Thanks to community foundations holding up this standard, I believe this to be true and a practice that should be adopted by foundations. Foundations should have boards whose members reflect their mission and beneficiaries. The rich don't feel the pains of the poor and even middle class. That pain is helpful in identifying solutions for easing the pain

According to the Washington Post, the CEO of the Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Washington completed a "negotiated resignation" following "the recent appointment of a new Board Chair. At the crux of the resignation, the CEO states that discussions with board members revealed plans for the new Board Chair to have a broader role and be more active than the previous Chair.

There are all kinds of various issues that certainly surround this case (like the disposition of certain properties) but I find the processes much more interesting. It appears as though the board was unhappy with the CEO's decisions and rather than overtly express this (or perhaps conduct an evaluation measured against results-focused goals) they decided to change their own leadership and give themselves, or at least their chair, new authority to get results that would be more satisfying.

This saga is a great lesson in nonprofit governance and more importantly, board:exec relationships. Great fodder for a case study.