Frequently held at the end of the calendar year, the annual meeting provides a great opportunity to get a multiple bang for the board retiree buck.  Specifically, many boards neglect the minimal courtesy of recognizing board service for members that have retired since the last annual meeting.  Even if these members dropped out during the preceding year, it is important to place the organization in the best light and honor the service of all board members, regardless of how much they really contributed. 

Just as we want all board members to perform at a minimally productive standard or better, we should model good behavior by recognizing all who were invited and accepted onto the board with a minimum of positive attention.   The organization bears part of the blame if it allows a member to attain and remain in a pattern of minimal performance.  So regardless of how any member actually performed,  the organization honor board retirees to continually signal to the community that it is pleased to have citizens step forward to join the board.  At a minimum, this joining signals support for the organization’s mission and an intention for good service. 

Recognizing a retiring board member publicly will put them into a debt of honor that they may choose to repay in the future financially or otherwise.  At the very least, they can go forth with good feelings as an informal ambassador at large.  An additional benefit may occur by using a portion of annual board financial gifts (or soliciting an additional gift) to make a special donation in the name of honored retirees back to the organization.  This may be more highly regarded by the retiree than an expensive gift beyond the standard, and highly affordable, framed certificate of service.  These recognitions of service create opportunities for additional publicity that might not otherwise accompany an annual meeting.  It is at least a justification to send out a press release, giving the organization some exposure and potentially generating a media clipping that will provide further good feelings on behalf of the honored retiree.

A recent conversation with a colleague provided a great illustration of how a board can approach strategic issues.  In this situation, the organization had growth accommodation needs and possessed adequate financial stability to consider moving into a larger facility.  A standard approach would be to look for space to rent or space to own but thinking strategically means to think about multiple possibilities and to be open to opportunities to make progress on other organization objectives rather than just adequate working space for staff to serve customers.

Perhaps more important is what to consider, is how to go about the consideration.  Strategic thinking requires viewing the challenge from multiple viewpoints to generate multiple solutions.  As is frequently the case, this situation involved a lead board standing committee and the executive director taking lead on generating options.  But it didn’t stop there, as an outside real estate agent was engaged to provide assistance.  Other fund raising professionals and nonprofit leaders in the community were also consulted and other members of the board asked to think about other advisers they could approach.  This illustrates how “thinking outside the box” happens when thinkers outside the organization are invited to think about a challenge.

Strategic thinking has resulted in a multiple of creative options, such as:  lease-purchasing space, owning a building with space for growth leased to other organizations; co-ownership of a facility; adaptive re-use of an existing building; conversion of a commercial space into a nonprofit service space; locking I a long term lease that allows subleasing.  As is evident, some of these potential solutions involve the engagement of allied organizations and this engagement might yield further opportunities worth y of exploration.  What other alternatives come to YOUR mind when thinking about somebody else’s space challenge? 

Of course, sifting through multiple alternatives presents its own difficulties, in converting an odd assortment of overlapping solutions for simplified side-by-side comparison and evaluation.  A fundamental lesson to be learned from this example is the importance of allowing adequate time for strategic thinking.  These considerations have been going on for well over one year.  When facing a crisis demanding an immediate decision, in effect trapped in the corner of your box, it is extremely difficult to climb outside and engage a multiple of perspectives and to thoroughly generate and examine alternatives.

Frequently people forming a nonprofit and serving on its board are motivated to serve based because they have a vocational interest in the area addressed by that nonprofit.  This situation generates ongoing opportunities for conflicts of interest to surface.  While most guidance on managing conflicts of interest focus on the adoption of adequate policies, many organizations fail to insure the proper first step in implementation:  the declaration of potential conflicts.  Declarations work well in more obvious situations, such as a business being owned by a board member that is in the same industry that is impacted by the nonprofit.   Additional effort is required to prepare for unexpected potential conflicts.

One approach at practicing the recognition of unexpected conflicts is to use a paired interview activity.  First, one board member asks the other to list their occupation and major commercial interests active in the geographical service area or type of service offered by the nonprofit.  The inquiry should then be expanded to include the affiliations of close relatives and friends that live in or have commercial or service interests in that geographical or service area.  The two board members then switch roles and the former interviewer is interviewed.

Once these “interests” have been identified, both individuals can have a discussion regarding anticipated operation of their nonprofit, any operational adjustments that might occur in the upcoming year and then together develop scenarios in which the interests of the two individuals might overlap with or somehow be impacted by the organization’s foreseen interests.  For example, the organization might be considering location to a new building and one of the board members could have a relative that owns a business involved with painting, real estate or moving.  This type of scenario can be noted in writing and pooled for review by the relevant board standing committee or the board’s chair.  It is in this type of rehearsal and preparation, that we train ourselves to be vigilant and more successful in recognizing conflicts of interest that require further action once they occur. 

With full time staff featuring management, service delivery and development talent, trustees can easily get the impression that oversight, let alone participation in, fund raising, is not their job and certainly beyond their capacity.  Routine development tasks for trustees may only extend to making an annual gift, signing solicitation letters, opening doors for staff to ask for funds and of course, accepting the monthly financial report and approving the annual budget.  Some boards do become very involved in capital campaigns and major giving and many more staff leaders wish their boards would adopt this level of commitment. 

For too many boards, trustees shy away from concerns and activities concerning financing, leaving these tasks to “the professionals.”  How can members of these boards get started in owning the responsibility of insuring adequate funding levels?  One starting point is at least an annual conversation, at the annual meeting, strategic planning retreat or other forum, in coming to grips with the strategic considerations of fundraising.  Here are some starting questions to consider.

Where does funding come from now, in general, what is the revenue source pie chart and why is it in this configuration?  What areas of service delivery need to grow in order for the organization to become more valuable to the community it serves?  What are the alternative revenue source expansions that could be achieved to support this growth?  What would an optimal new revenue pie look like and how long will it take to get there?  What are the probabilities, risks and trade-offs associated with staff, board and partners working to achieve this new, differently shaped revenue pie?

Even if trustees are new to these sorts of considerations, it is productive to help them develop skill in this sort of top level analysis.  For one thing, it helps them to appreciate the challenges and stressors faced by key staff on an ongoing basis.  It will also prepare these trustees to take on a more active role and becoming stronger partners with staff in carrying out necessary fund raising activities.