Sometimes in our efforts to deliver the perfect proven training component, we consultants forget some of our other teachings that individuals truly are unique and each connects to concepts differently.  I was humbled recently by a board committee whose members were balking at using their own connections to make friends for promoting the organization and yes, identifying prospects for future fund raising.

Although these individual's were not easily able to connect to overall goals and needs, they were fascinated with individual projects/program components in the strategic plan.  It seemed much easier for each of these trustees to think about just one element within the organization's operations and how they could go about seeking new friends in the community that would be pleased to support just that one element.  We had finally found the key to unlocking pent-up passion that could be boldly used by even the most reticent board member for fund-raising!!!  So, come out of the clouds of concepts and get down to brass tacks - hey they are really shiny and very sharp, enough to penetrate a previously un-breachable barrier.

A leader of a board of trustees submitted their resignation and left the board, without specifying their reasons for a mid term departure.  The trustee did not give any reasons verbally to any board or staff members regarding a reason for departure.  Given some of the recent exchanges of communication involving this board member, it is certainly possible to guess at a reason or two.

Knowing a real reason would perhaps spotlight a problem or issue that required attention.  This points out the value of having a policy that requires exit interviews for trustees.  Whether an individual leaves on schedule, such as end of a term, or makes an abrupt departure, this can be an incredibly important source of information on how the board/organization is doing and where improvements might be needed.  As is usually the case, you don't miss a policy until you realize it is missing.

Many of us have heard about the four stages of group development:  forming, storming, norming and performing.  What never ceases to amaze me if how true it is that, when even one new vocal member of a group is added, the whole group re-enters the forming stage (although, in theory, it doesn't need to last a long time!).

The need for patience to allow new members to settle in and bond with the existing group is even more apparent in the all-volunteer organization, where the board is also the primary staff.  I am pleased to report that, in a recent work meeting of such a group, I had the opportunity to give a new member needed space for the re-forming to take place.  In fact, the elected leader of our entire group and myself (the group leader) just stepped to back of room and allowed to new voice to speak. 

We know it will take time to re-bond everyone and we already feel our feathers ruffled regarding previous decisions, declared values and priorities for the group (bit of a storm-wind being felt here) but if Job can do it, we can.  With a little patience, we can see a stronger team and improved outcomes for stakeholders just a few months away.

Many executive and development directors feel that their boards don't perform adequately in the fund raising department.  But what happens when board members actually threaten to ask for funds in a way that staff members perceive as inappropriate?  This is a problem many E.D.'s and D.D.'s would like to have, I suppose, but what IS inappropriate fund raising?  If fund raising activity is not on the "not" list (illegal, unethical, unreliable, impractical, unsupportable, unseemly, results-not applicable), should staff find methods chosen by  board members to raise funds "acceptable?"  To be a bit more specific:  when is it appropriate for an E.D. or development director to censor the "way" that a board member develops and solicits for a major gift to cover an expenditure for an activity planned by staff and approved as part of the annual budget?

When do fund raising methods deployed by board members cross the line so that these activities undermine the operational control of staff?  At some point, shouldn't board members be trusted to portray the community value of an organization in their own words and tap into their own passion?  If staff have been unable to motivate board members to take risks to meet strangers and ask them for doncations, shouldn't board members be supported in finding their own motivation?  Can't board members have the freedom to find the best way to connect operational funding needs with the passion and perspective of individual prospective donors?  OR, should board members only perform fund raising actions in a way and manner that is highly scripted and controlled by staff?  I am reminded of an old abortion rights slogan:  "If you can't you trust me with a choice how can you trust me with a child?"   In this case, the question is:  if you can't trust in my discretion then how can you trust me with your mission?