The Nonprofit FAQ

• Determine the organization's mission and purposes
  
• Select the executive staff through an appropriate process
  
• Provide ongoing support and guidance for the executive; review his/her performance
  
• Ensure effective organizational planning
  
• Ensure adequate resources
  
• Manage resources effectively (the buck stops with them,
  ultimately)
  
• Determine and monitor the organization's programs and services
  
• Enhance the organization's public image
  
• Serve as a court of appeal
  
• Assess its own performance

The Minnesota Council of Nonprofits has a checklist-style summary of the basic things a nonprofit board needs to make sure get done -- like filing various required government reports -- on its website at http://www.mncn.org/info/FAQ_GOV1.htm

The Free Management Library provides additional perspectives on the purpose, responsibilities and duties of a board of directors. See http://www.mapnp.org/library/boards/brdrspon.htm

For legal responsibilities, the American Bar Association publishes a "Guidebook for Directors of Nonprofit Organizations" (280pp). It is available for $44.95 in paperback from PO Box 10892, Chicago, IL 60610-0892; 312/988-5522. (Or you can order it online from the ABA Store; the book is described at http://www.abanet.org/abastore/index.cfm?section=main&fm=Product.AddToCart&pid=5070388"> this link and the button at the bottom of that screen will let you find out more about ordering materials from the Bar Association.)

Dave Matthews wrote to usnonprofit-l on February 26, 1996:

Members of Boards of Directors -- most frequently the Board President -- occasionally lose sight of the generally accepted operating principle that no action or directive of functional committees of the Board, or of individual Board members, can have any force or effect unless it is approved by the full Board. Thus, Board committees and individual members may make recommendations for consideration and action by the Board, but they would normally be considered "out of bounds" if they attempted to give direct instructions or orders to the Executive Director and/or members of his/her executive staff. Those orders should generally come in the form of resolutions adopted by the full Board.

On the other hand, from my experience in monitoring a great many community based non-profit corporations, it tends to give me concern when the only member of an agency's executive staff who speaks to the Board during its meetings is the Executive Director. We often forget that one of the key responsibilities of these organizations is to be constantly training and developing their human resources and their component project leaders for bigger and better things. Thus, when I see the various project directors of an agency called upon to join with their Executive Director in meetings with the Board's project oversight committees, and to give their progress reports during meetings of the full Board -- while the Executive Director, as "conductor or the orchestra," gives the overall introductory or wrap-up summary and "chairs" the presentations of his/her staff -- it tells me that the agency's executive leadership probably has its priorities straight. That is to say, the Executive Director does not appear to be excessively preoccupied with preserving and protecting the exclusivity of his/her posititon by serving as the sole informational conduit/filter of information to the Board. When such protective or "turf" considerations are apparent, my experience tends to suggest that program performance and/or staff training and professional development are being relegated to second or third place, and that a "cult of of Executive Director personality" may be in effect.

This is a touchy subject, because it has been rightly stated that often the creation, operation, and success of any organization can only take place within the long shadow of a single individual. Many corporations are the brain-child and life's work of their CEO or Executive Director. These people can be understandably -- and sometimes excessively -- possessive and protective of what they have created. This can be complicated by the fact that in some cases the executive leadership of non-profit public service agencies has fallen victim to an egocentric personality trait that, for lack of a better term, I have come to call "the Jesus complex," which -- in its negative manifestations -- can lead to an excessively self-righteous, autocratic, manipulative style of agency management. While the "Jesus complex" can also have some positive implications, a serious challenge that we all face is to guard against its adverse effects.