Recruiting Nonprofit Board Members who may disagree with certain aspects of the organization.

February 15, 2009 10:03 AM

What happens when a prospective nonprofit Board Member disagrees with a major initiative?

We are a newly formed 1-year old non-profit dedicated to sustainable urban development and the creation of an urban ecovillage. We are in the process of recruiting Board Members to replace those of us who started the organization and who wish to transfer over to paid staff positions. One person who we work closely with, and who has shown much interest and support in our organization, has been approached to be a Board Member. But he is unsure because he is not in agreement with our plans to development a community land trust (he is more private business/investor based in philosophy).

Does this mean we should not welcome him to the Board; or is it ok to have dissenting opinions on certain matters such as this to provide Board diversity of opinion? Cheers~frank

posted by franklen to work & money (6 comments total)

One should only join the Board of a non-profit organization when one is in full agreement of the basic philosophy and goal of the organization.

If the project fits with the general philosophy and goals of the organization and someone disagrees with, then I would say that this person does not belong to the Board.
posted by aroberge at 10:10 AM on February 15

It depends on who your membership is, and what board model you use... and what role you play in the organization. Do you appoint your board members? Do you vote them onto your board? Who does the appointing? Who does the voting?

It sounds to me that your board, plus your executive director, form your society, although the ED, being an employee, cannot vote.

If your board decides they like this fellow and vote him in, that's all that counts. If there are some concerns that he does not support a core initiative, that should be discussed during the nomination and election process.

As well, how did you decide to plan to develop a community land trust? Was this discussed and voted on by your board?

Do you have a strategic plan? Is this land trust initiative included in your current strat plan? If your fiscal year starts on April 1, is the land trust initiative part of your 09/10 plan?

If so, it doesn't really matter what this fellow's opinion is, because your plan has been decided. The ED will give quarterly updates about the progress of this plan, at which point the board member can discuss, and, if necessary, argue for a course correction.

If you don't have a strat plan, or if your board has not voted on and formalized this plan, then you have bigger issues to worry about than one new board member who will add value to the organization, but may have dissenting ideas.
posted by KokuRyu at 10:18 AM on February 15

Respect his judgment and invite him to continue his non-Board-membership support and counsel.

Him on the Board ends only one of two ways, neither of them likely to be good from your perspective.

First, he wins over other Board members and changes the organization's directions to fit his priorities -- which results in the founders either quitting their own organization or implementing policies which which they disagree.

Second, he doesn't win over other Board members, and becomes a permanent dissenter ... until his inevitable resignation at which point all of his donations and other forms of support end.

By the way, this doesn't mean that you shouldn't have independent Board members with a diversity of views and backgrounds. It just means that at least in your first set of non-founder Board members, they should be on board with the full plan. Even from this starting point some eventual disagreement and dischord will surely arise...
posted by MattD at 10:21 AM on February 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

Speaking as nonprofit staff who generally loves our board and has the utmost respect for their decades of experience and years of volunteer work guiding the organization, it is a big pain when board members are not supportive, much less when they hold opposite views.

is it ok to have dissenting opinions

It is if you (a) have enough other (solid, will-not-be-swayed) votes to outvote him or otherwise can go ahead regardless (as KokuRyu outlines), (b) don't care that much about this particular project and, in general, about your organization swerving towards his point of view.

I wouldn't risk it myself. MattD's points and suggestion are good.
posted by salvia at 10:38 AM on February 15

It doesn't sound like a good fit unless the organization is still in the process of deciding whether to go the land trust route or use a more private scheme. If the decision has been made and it's for a land trust, it's not productive to have someone on the board pointing out that a land trust is a bad idea. By way of example, I'm on the board of a microcinema. Our mission is to show artist-made, non-commercial film. If someone wanted to be on our board who felt that we should be showing full-length, blockbuster films, he would not be a productive contributor because he disagrees with the mission of the organization.

You can still keep this person involved. Perhaps you can have an informal advisory board that you call on to advise the organization on specific issues other than the land trust portion of the organization.
posted by *s at 10:58 AM on February 15 [1 favorite has favorites]

As a nonprofit employee AND a nonprofit board member, I agree with what people are saying here that in order to effectively serve as a board member he has to be on board with the SET goals of the group. (And from what you say, it appears that there is current group consensus on using a land trust model moving forward.)

You may, however, be suffering from a lack of formality at this point. For example, if there is no SET policy (ie you are still in the planning stages), then it is appropriate for him to come on board with that perspective and attempt to impact the formation of group policy. But if there is a current, set, policy that he disagrees with, which he would either attempt to overturn or have a difficult time supporting, then he simply isn't a good fit for the board and should simply remain a supporter and advocate in another capacity.
posted by greekphilosophy at 11:40 AM on February 15