In dark and slow times, it can be inspirational and instructive to review board history.  It is possible that even tougher challenges were once overcome by our predecessors.  How did they do it?  What can we learn from their experience?  It is easy to dismiss the banter of an old timer or a previous trustee as somebody just fixated on the past.  But sometimes, there is more to it.  Some things worth knowing reside in the old stories.

 It is also the case that organizations blessed with a higher capacity may too often take their current effectiveness for granted.  It may be that tough strategic decisions were once made, that anguish was experienced among both the staff and board in making fundamental change when a new direction or way of doing things was chosen.  When things are working well, we can have a tendency to back off.  However, it is at these times that to truly count our blessings; we should reach for an even higher standard.  Only then can we truly honor those upon whose shoulders we surely stand.

It is common for board members, especially competent ones or those connected to real or perceived funding sources, to serve on multiple boards.  There is also the interesting case where a member serves officially on two boards for representational purposes:  the “liaison.”  On the surface, this appears to be a great idea, to hardwire a communication channel between governance structures of two organizations.  Upon closer examination, caution and care is encouraged.  If this is your situation or you are contemplated such a structural arrangement, I would offer the following considerations when planning or monitoring such a situation.

1)  Is the purpose clear for this formal dual/linked membership?  What problems can result without sufficient clarity?  How can adequate clarity best be achieved?

2)  Does the trustee comply with a parallel or disparate set of duties to each board?  How does this affect trustee performance on the home board?

3)  How is performance in the ambassadorial/liaison role monitored and measured by both organizations, especially the original appointing board?  What measures are most important?

4)  How are confidentiality issues handled in the “secondary” or liaised-to board – how does the presence of a potentially less loyal member impact candor and decision making quality?  If there is an adverse impact, how can this be addressed?

5)  Is dual membership truly the best way to insure communication – is this taking the place of or providing a disincentive to effective E.D. to E.D. communication between the organizations?  Does having this arrangement produce the results for which it was intended to the home board?

6)  Is there a danger of the trustee becoming co-opted by the ambassadorial board resulting in contributions of funds, connections and advice being greater with the new board than in service to the original board?  Does it matter if this is becomes the case?  If it did matter, how would the situation be handled?

Desperate times may call for more desperate measures but boards should resist the tendency to slack off on oversight of revenue generating activities.  With new federal funds available in the U.S., there is a temptation to re-engage in the "rock-throwing school of grant writing" - if we just through enough rocks in good directions, then we are bound to hit something! The emergence of this temptation should alert board members:  now is the time to review grant seeking policy and parameters.  Following are five basic questions that staffs are hopefully asking when looking at new funding sources.  Board members need to periodically insure that these questions are being asked.

1)  Will this project divert us from our community role/niche/integrity or values and guiding principles?
2)  Do we have the matching funds and staff/service/administrative capacity to comfortably operate this grant, could it possibly strain or reduce our core productivity?
3)  Is this program really the best fit for us, does it further attainment of our strategic goals, and do we look like the sort of poster child that the funding source is looking for?
4)  What happens when the new funding stops:  can we continue this with other funding sources or should we be seeking a more ongoing revenue flow such as earned income or a contract?
5)  Do we have adequate time, partners or other resources to plan and submit a competitive proposal?

Boards frequently under-perform as advocates and advisors for organizations because the best minds are not at the table.  Staff who assist with screening candidates usually focus on "who can protect me, "who can help solve our current problems," or "who has raised money before."  More powerful outcomes would result by asking forward looking questions, such as:

- Who can help us set goals to increase value to the community?
- Who can help us to meet challenges from our competitors?
- Who can help us regain relevance to traditional stakeholders?
- Who can connect us to new stakeholders with growth potential?
- Who can help us attain a new business model to increase financial independence?