The unique representational needs of each board means there is never an exact “one-size-fits-all” policy for many issues, including committee structure.  Assuming that we can refer to committees that meet regularly to do the work of the board as “standing committees,” who can serve on them?

Conventional best practices would say that only voting board members, trustees, can serve on these committees.  However, there are many cases where nonvoting members or even people outside the board serve on these committees.  I wouldn’t say that this is wrong but I would say that it makes the most sense if at least the chair of these committees is a voting, trustee-level board member.  Committees are doing work for the board and their recommendations, if adopted by the full board, become the organization’s policy.  It makes sense that only those truly accountable for organization-level decision making should manage recommendation development for the board.

 That is perhaps the key question:  who do you want to make and influence policy for the organization – what structure best meets the needs of key stakeholder interests in furthering the organization’s mission for the benefit of the community?  

Of course, the structure of committee membership MUST be laid out in the bylaws.  If current practice is not set forth in the bylaws, which is often the case, the bylaws should be adjusted to accommodate desired committee membership practice as soon as possible.  Bylaws changes do not need to be saved up for an arbitrarily sized bundle or an annual meeting to be refined by a properly noticed vote of the board (again, as set forth in the bylaws!).   

This seemingly benign issue of staff-board contact merits thoughtful policy and monitoring to maintain organizational harmony.  Opportunities for mishaps arise in both relatively small and simple settings as well as those that are large and complex.  It is usually prudent to protect the established “chain of command” and deviate where prudent.  Board policy is needed in this area.  Where to start?  One way is to consider the three zones of board work (board, committee and individual) and consider what board-staff contact is appropriate:  when can board members and staff members feel free to contact one another and when should the E.D./CEO be asked to approve contact in each setting?

In full board meetings, staff should attend when they are actively supporting that activity by making a report or participating in an important exchange preparatory to setting policy.  It may not be necessary, waste valuable work time or generate unnecessary inter-staff rivalries/jealousies if staff members attend as a sign of status but without function and board meeting knowledge used divisively.

With committees or any other kind of work group that involves both staff and board members, the staff role is usually to support board member activity.  Contact to set up meetings and carry out assignments is appropriate but careful consideration should be given to when it is appropriate for staff members to contact board members to add or change those members’ workloads or responsibilities.  Usually, staff members perform work specific support assignments for specific board members/groups but board members should not unduly increase workload of staff, especially to the point that work quality and productivity suffer.  Staff job descriptions should reflect significant ongoing board support duties. 

The case with individual board member assignments is similar.   How much support, research and hand-holding by staff must be thoughtfully considered and diversion from existing duties must be monitored.  While each organization’s culture is unique, it is good to consider some standard policy statements, such as those presented at Blue Avocado. 

A colleague recently challenged me regarding the legitimacy of yet another nonprofit doing “x.”  To paraphrase a frequently heard comment:  ‘I need to ask myself and my fellow board members, don’t we already have enough organizations doing “x” and aren’t we better off having fewer stronger organizations versus many weaker ones?’  It is at this point that I feel compelled to offer the following philosophy about the so-called limited revenue pie, the scarcity of resources that all nonprofits appear to confront in every community marketplace.

I would offer four reasons why the pie is NOT limited to the current size for your community.  1)  Just because there a lot of intriguing slices in the current “x” pie, does not mean that all valued flavors are being offered.  By this, I mean that there may be a different approach that better serves an underserved customer segment that is not yet available.  Just because an older, more established, and larger organization, think s it has “x” covered, does not equate to the ultimate reality that may come to pass.  2)  If a new or smaller organization can grow by offering “x” services in a way that is more higly valued by the community, "prices" can be increased and the total revenue pie for “x” can indeed be grown (perhaps this is a different way of stating reason #1?). 

3)  If a new or smaller organization grows because it turns out to be more relevant/highly valued than one or more organizations and those less relevant organizations atrophy, is that really a problem?  Is there some unwritten contract that existing organizations are always more valuable and worth preserving than newer ones.  If this were the case, innovation would be much rarer than it appears to be in our society.  A more relevant “x” pie will be more highly valued and grow as a result.  4)  Lastly, why is it so difficult to view the private NONprofit marketplace any differently than the accepted innately competitive FORprofit marketplace (probably a variation on reason #3).  If the marketplace for “x” services becomes more competitive, more stakeholders may be drawn into it, services may become more innovative/relevant/valuable and the “x” pie may indeed grow.

Although mid July is halfway through the summer season, a traditionally slow time for nonprofit boards, there are a couple of great tasks the bored board can consider.  First of all, on a longer term more strategic level, it is halfway through the calendar year and the operating of year of many nonprofits.  This is a good time to think about where board work is at compared to where you thought you would be at this point:  on strategic initiatives, big goals for the year, major projects and program operations.  Is your board getting the flow of data that it needs to make these sorts of assessments, at this time of year or at any time?  If not, what improvements in data gathering, analysis and dissemination would be most helpful? Who can take the lead on making these improvements?

Secondly, more tactically, think about the short term period of “the summer.”  You are halfway through that season.  Are there individual or work group/committee assignments that are important to complete primarily during this season, by September 1 or so?  Are you making an appropriate level of progress on these assignments appropriate, are you at least halfway there?   If not, what are the most important activities that you and your colleagues could undertake to accomplish the outcomes most helpful to the organization?  What other colleagues on the board, community contributions and staff support do you need to add in or adjust to produce these outcomes?