The Nonprofit FAQ

Should Staff Attend Board Meetings?

On 20 March 1996 brucelegs@aol.com (Brucelegs) started quite a discussion on soc.org.nonprofit by writing on the subject: staff taking over? Greetings! How do you draw the line between Board and Staff interactions? Do any of you invite staff members (other than the ED) to Board meetings? Do they have input at the meetings? or are they there just to observe? Our agency is getting the feeling more and more that the staff runs the agency not the Board (questioning our ability to choose our next ED, to the point of "scaring off" our most qualified candidate when we thought we were being nice and arranging a meeting for Q and A with the candidate). They recently said that they do not "trust" the board, while we trust them implicily with operation of the agency. Yes, we are writing a grant for some Board/Staff development with a faciltator, but what really should be the relationship between Board and Staff? Jerome Scriptunas (jeromes@att.net) replied 20 Mar 1996: --How do you draw the line between Board and Staff interactions? Minimize it. In general, the board needn't have any formal interactions with the staff. The board should work with the agency director. This is not to say they can't talk with the staff, but rather that it is better to observe some protocol. --Do any of you invite staff members (other than the ED) to Board meetings? Not on a regular basis. The ED is a non-voting participant of the board. It may help in the area of awareness and education for the staff to report on something at a board meeting once in a while, though. --Do they have input at the meetings? or are they there just to observe? If staff has a concern, they should communicate it to the ED who would represent it to the board. The is no need for staff to observe board meetings in general; that's not their job. --Our agency is getting the feeling more and more that the staff runs the agency not the Board (questioning our ability to choose our next ED, to the point of "scaring off" our most qualified candidate when we thought we were being nice and arranging a meeting for Q and A with the candidate). The ED "directs" the agency. The board provides oversight, governance, support, and resources. The board does not "run" the agency, the ED does. The board hires the ED. The board can take staff concerns into account, but the board "owns" the responsibility to interview, qualify, hire, and evaluate the ED. --They recently said that they do not "trust" the board, while we trust them implicily with operation of the agency. --Yes, we are writing a grant for some Board/Staff development with a faciltator, but what really should be the relationship between Board and Staff? My philosophy is that the board and ED need to know what their job is, need to understand non-profit governance, need to consistently fulfill their responsibilities. Many times it takes a strong back bone, as well as brains, to do this. Good luck, Jerome Jerome Scriptunas, Board President BB/BS of Monmouth County, Inc. jeromes@att.net Jerome Scriptunas added a clarification 14 May 1999: Hello, I wanted to clarify some points I made originally, since I think my views have more in common with the other postings than it might seem. My original comments had more to do with the specific situation posed to the newsgroup than with board-staff relations in general. The specific situation presented seemed to imply that a mistrust already existed between the staff and the board. My comments had to do with ideas to consider for containing the situation and working towards improving it; hence my suggestion for minimizing interactions in the specific situation so that some stability and mutual understanding might be attained. My point about inviting staff members to meetings had to do with two concerns. First, perhaps there is a different interest from program staff than from administrative and-or fund development staff. Secondly, perhaps there is a benefit in understanding whether board meeting attendance is part of a job description, or is it 'overtime', and-or is the attendance on a regular basis. In general, with my board and staff, we typically include staff working in the fund development area at most board meetings. On the other hand, the program staff might attend an 'annual meeting' and-or when there is a staff transition. I agree with the other people who responded on the advantages of establishing a friendly and comfortable rapport between board and staff, and creating an environment where ideas and input are welcome from multiple perspectives. My point about the board having a strong backbone was speaking to the specific situation of staff-board mistrust. I meant that in that situation, assertive, yet not aggressive, confrontation (not attack) might be appropriate for the board to clarify their stake in the situation. Finally, I am speaking about a situation that I am not directly involved with, so my comments are hypothetical. I do not mean to suggest that a solution is cut-and-dried, nor that it must be an either-or ultimatum. I sincerely believe in, practice, and endorse approaches that are adaptive, flexible, and customizable to what seems to be helpful for specific situations. Best regards to all for the stimulating exchange. Jerome Scriptunas, jeromes@att.net, www.brisc.org . Shannon Cain added 21 Mar 1996: I disagree wholeheartedly. While protocol is indeed important,cutting off the board from the staff can lead to a board which has only a one-sided view of the agency and its programs and needs -- the view of the ED. While the ED's perspective is a very important one for the board to understand, it is nonetheless that of just *one* person. Also, keeping the board separated from the development staff is just not a good idea. The development director needs to have free access to the board in order to do an effective fundraising job. It should be clear to all that the chain of command must be followed, and that the staff should contact board members only in an appropriate context. But if the board is doing its job as a governing body, and the ED is doing his or her job as a manager, what reason is there to keep these committed volunteers away from the people who know the agency best? When staff is forbidden from interacting with board members, it not only creates a board which is out of touch, but can also foster an us-against-them atmosphere. --Do any of you invite staff members (other than the ED) to Board meetings? I see no reason why selected senior staff members can't regularly attend board meetings (unless there is a discussion about issues which require confidentiality or other sensitive matters). Often the best input in the board meetings I attend come from staffers. --Our agency is getting the feeling more and more that the staff runs the agency not the Board (questioning our ability to choose our next ED, to the point of "scaring off" our most qualified candidate when we thought we were being nice and arranging a meeting for Q and A with the candidate). I had a similar experience when I was being hired as an ED. A Program Director decided she didn't like me as a candidate and called board members individually to lobby against hiring me. It almost worked. When I was hired, she quit. The board had to do some careful selfexamination about appropriate interaction with staff. Even after this incident, however, I still feel it is unwise to cut off staff from the board. --My philosophy is that the board and ED need to know what their job is, need to understand non-profit governance, need to consistently fulfill their responsibilities. Many times it takes a strong back bone, as well as brains, to do this. Again, I agree that jobs and roles need to be clearly defined. But using a "strong backbone" at the expense of open communication is unproductive and would suggest that the ED has something to fear by allowing staff free access to the board. I have been a board member, a development staffer, a consultant, and an ED, both in organizations where board-staff interaction is okay, and where it was forbidden. I can tell you that in my experience, the former type of agency is a much healthier and happier environment to work in. The latter, while common, is a relic from the days of good 'ole boy backroom decision-making and top-down management. Shannon Cain Fundraising consultant Tucson, AZ Andrew Swanson (andrew@azstarnet.com) contined Thu, 21 Mar 1996: --If staff has a concern, they should communicate it to the ED who would represent it to the board. The is no need for staff to observe board meetings in general; that's not their job. I would disagree here and assert that when work schedules permit some staff should be allowed to observe board meetings. With very few exceptions one can earn an MSW degree in this country and never once hear the phrase "Board of Directors" mentioned. And yet most MSWs will at some time or other work for a nonprofit governed by a governing board. So it can be useful to the staff as education to see how boards work (and sometimes fail to work) before they find themselves graduating to an executive director's position. Obviously, if the board is dealing with delicate issues only the executive should be there, but much of a board's business is not all that confidential and so lets give the subordinate staff some exposure to this sometimes difficult to understand group of people. Much later grief might be avoided for those moving up the staff ladder. William Krueger (kci101@aol.com) joined in 21 Mar 1996: > If staff has a concern, they should communicate it to the ED who would represent it to the board. The is no need for staff to observe board meetings in general; that's not their job. My Response, such as it is: I couldn't agree more that staff should be enouraged to attend, and participate, in board meetings. Not only for the individual's personal and professional growth, but for the organization as well. Since all board meetings, except for sensitive issues, are open to the public (or should be), shouldn't the staff be allowed to participate in a "call to the public" agenda item. This doesn't mean the board has to debate the items brought by staff, but shouldn't the staff feel free to share ideas with the people who provide the philosophical direction of the charity? Sometimes we worry more about "turfs" than with being responsible adults looking out for the best interests of the organization. A good E.D. should not fear this open communication ... in fact, this openness could reduce the tendency for "private" communications much more detrimental to the organization. Or so I think!! William Krueger KCI101@aol.com Reposted, with additions and corrections, 5/23/99 -- PB