|
 In Trustees We Trust Panelists: Howard Herring, John R. (Jack) Lane, Maureen K. Robinson and Ferdinand T. (Terry) Stent Moderated by Susan J. Arbetter The following white paper is drawn from the remarks of the panelists and moderator for this session, along with the questions and responses from members of the audience. This document is intended to reflect the variety of viewpoints offered during the discussion, and to frame broadly the issues discussed; it should not be taken as a formal statement of opinion by the panelists. In the world of not-for-profits, there is a distinct variation on the old joke of "can't live with them, can't live without them"—the "them" in this case being trustees. Trustees typically serve as volunteers, leading an organization because of a commitment to its mission, and in turn making a commitment of their own time, skills, and financial resources. They can serve as the backbone of an institution not only because of their financial support, but also through the voice they provide for an organization within the broader community. Having the community buzzing about the innovative programs being produced by an institution dependent on that community's largesse for its survival can make all the difference to its long-term success. A Complex Relationship At the same time, trustees can present challenges. For everyone involved, from an organization's executive leadership and staff, to audiences and members, and even other trustees, it takes a lot of work to make these relationships function smoothly. While the basic alignment of interests seems obvious—doesn't everyone want the institution to succeed?—the definitions of success, and questions of ultimate management responsibility, require careful planning, good communication skills, and compromise. Many executive directors cite trustee relationships as among their biggest frustrations (along with fundraising), but a good board, and a strong relationship between the board and the organization's executive director, can ensure an institution's and a director's success. Trustee relationships can be facilitated by clearly articulating responsibilities and shaping expectations early. There are a number of areas that organizations and their trustees should consider before committing to each other, such as:
Once on an organization's board, the challenge most often faced by trustees is simple: mission versus money. Like it or not, trustees feel a responsibility to examine whether a given program is key to an institution's mission, how much it will cost, whether it will pay for itself, or where the funds to sustain it will come from. As representatives from the community within the organization, they may also raise questions about a program's content, and how it relates to the values of the audience. While the trustees are responsible for the long-term health of the institution, there are certain issues that they should leave to the executive director. For example, in a museum context, trustees should be involved in acquisition decisions, because a museum's purchase of a work of art both requires great resources and is a component of its long-term goals. Whether an institution should own a work of art or invest its resources elsewhere are trustee-level questions. At the same time, the nearer-term decisions about exhibition content or education programs should not be part of a trustee's purview, and instead should be left to the director and professional staff. This is not just a matter of management but of professional responsibility: most trustees are not trained experts in the fields of the organizations on whose boards they serve. Trustee opinion on programming matters, but it should be just that: opinion, not control. Still, at times trustees must be prepared for a "tough love" approach, one that goes in both directions. In some cases, this may mean that a board of trustees has to insist on changes to how the institution is pursuing its mission, set new limits on a budget or the implementation of a program, or even fire the executive leadership. Such decisions are never taken lightly, and usually it is clear to most involved when dramatic changes are needed. At the same time, it is not unheard of that a board of trustees, along with an institution's director, might tell a particular trustee that they are not living up to their obligations. While this might be centered on fundraising issues, it can be in response to much more mundane, but equally problematic, actions. Some trustees are uncooperative in board meetings, resistant to following the rules of discussion or belligerently insisting on pursuing their own agenda. Trustees may also wind up in hot water by talking indiscreetly about an organization's problems to others in the community, thus damaging reputations and, quite possibly, affecting an institution's long-term success. And in an environment increasingly sensitized to the accountability of a board in the for-profit world, not-for-profits must also take care that their trustees are not taking advantage of their relationship to an institution for personal gain. Trustees are the stewards of non-profit organizations within their community. Their individual and collective commitments can help propel an institution to new heights and ensure that it lives up to its mission again and again. Moreover, good collaborative relationships with executive leaders can also mean that an innovative idea from the program staff is successfully achieved because of the guiding role played by a trustee. To most trustees, the joys from such accomplishments outweigh the risks of serving on a board. For citation, please reference: http://berkshireconference.org/content/2006-trustees.cfm
|
