Assuming a calendar operating year, now is a great time to review financial trends and identify needs for any board decision making.  With half the year elapsed, take a look at major categories, such as salaries and benefits, other operating expenses, travel, capital outlay.  If significantly less or more than 50% of funds have been expended year-to-date, was this expected?  If not, what is the explanation?  If money is being spent more rapidly than anticipated, can annual expense targets be trimmed to keep the budget in balance or can a year end deficit be projected and tolerated? If less money is being spent than planned, should expenses be increased i n another area or should a year ending positive balance be planned for (maybe you can add to that endowment or keep a cushion going into a year of uncertainty?).   

Centrally, does the board have confidence in the staff’s approach to managing the budget as approved at the beginning of the fiscal year or is there a need to help restore a balance?  It is not micromanaging for a board to ask basic questions about trends and explore any concerns that arise.  Reviewing strategy for significant adjustments with the board likewise, can be a sign of strength and trust-building, not weakness, on behalf of a confident staff leader.

Sometimes when we locate a new board member, we just can’t wait to get them to the next meeting.  We might be anxious due to low attendance, not having a quorum or desperate because one of our burnt –out members is pleading with us to let him/her go.  But we should never be in such a hurry that we skip, forget or skimp on the orientation.  There is no one right way but most procedures we have seen seem to be insufficient to set up realistic expectations.  Perhaps it is establishing those expectations that are the true value and necessary minimum outcome of an orientation procedure.

Let’s use the standard reporting questions as a basis for thinking through possible orientation procedures.   Who should do it?  A fellow board member of some sort would be optimal, whether it is the chair, governance/membership committee chair, an old hand or even a member just completing their rookie year.  There are reasonable justifications for all of these choices.  A staff member could do all or part of this but that person could never provide a satisfactory substitute for a peer perspective.   What should be covered?  Hopefully, the prospective candidate was already exposed to the mission, direction, accomplishments, activities and demographics of the organization.  If not, that information needs to be presented.  Many times, a tour of service and office facilities makes sense.  Certainly covering the job description and anticipated activity pattern for a new trustee should be covered.  Where and how should it happen?   This may depend on circumstances.  If there is an incoming cohort, there could be a formal training in an appropriately conducive environment.  If there is only one approved candidate starting out, many informal settings would work. 

When should this happen?  Maybe before the first bull board or committee meeting is best but that may not always be practical.  Maybe the orientation can occur over time, some before meeting the group and some after.  If board members as a whole receive ongoing training, then the new member can benefit alongside the veterans.  Maybe mentoring by an assigned buddy can continue throughout the first year of service.  Why do an orientation?  Enabling board members to embrace shared expectations from the beginning that are consistent with the expectations of other existing members and that are reinforced throughout the service life of a board member is perhaps the minimum foundation to put in place to create an effective board. 

Confusion about what trustees do is evident during the launch of many organizations and a harmful mindset can linger over time.  It is challenging to create distance  in the beginning and in a need to move forward quickly, many early boards are populated with people that:  a)  the founder directly knows and trusts, b) comes directly from the pool of potential service clients, c)  have very limited time and d) have limited experience building and managing an organization. 

Some of these people make great advisors and can someday be cultivated to do more for the organization but they are frequently unable to excel in the trustee role.  It is easy to overlook the fact that an organization can have as many advisory groups as it can effectively support but only a relatively few trustees are needed. 

Among other responsibilities, trustees 1) take responsibility for the direction of the organization, 2) monitor expenditures and performance, 3) assist in managing the relationships needed to promote the organization to its stakeholders and attract adequate funding and 4) challenge staff leaders and hold them accountable, standing ready to replace leaders if necessary.   Having “Yes” people as trustees is attractive and expedient but not in the best long term interest of the organization and the community.  Taking the time to shuffle existing advisors and trustees into their proper places is always worth the effort.

Sometimes a board gets stuck, holding meetings but not making a discernible impact.  When this happens, it is tempting to look for problems or try to assign blame.  In this situation, many trustees feel powerless, believing that there is nothing they know how to do to improve the situation.  There are always options, such as:  bring in some new members, change who is in charge, get some advice on what do differently, do some goal-setting, focus on a new strategy, or get some training.

What’s most important is to do something different to re-start meaningful board activity.  Is there one right way to do this?  No, whatever works ends up being a good thing to do.  Waiting for the best answer or waiting for staff to make it happen rarely works.  Just the act of trying can actually lead to action that brings results.  Go ahead and declare a new activity as your restart button and give it a push!