Chasing potential Board members with fat wallets defeats the purpose and spirit of a non-profit Board. Sure, mega-universities do this with donations: they become “friends” with the wealthy by going fishing or camping with them; then BOOM, “the ask” comes into play and the asker moves on to the next victim…so much for a real friendship. It is why those donors are not repeat donors to that university or donate to other non-profits because then they believe all non-profits have that same toxic behavior.
Our diverse Board was chosen because we trust them from prior experiences and to use their diverse intellectual values that took them many years to develop…not their wallet size. We value their time, talent, and knowledge. Asking for 100% Board giving devalues their time, talent, and knowledge, and keeps Boards from diversifying because Board money becomes the only focus. One result from 100% Board Giving: wealthy Board members are always treated differently than the financially poor but talented Board members because those non-profits do not want to lose that huge annual fund. Consequently, too many non-profits allow the racists, sexists, etc. Board members to stick around, creating a toxic environment. The above problem is too common if you follow non-profit discussion groups. Then again, like all Board members have an added liability risk.
Our focus is trying to mitigate many biomedical issues [or help improve those human conditions from those biomedical/environmental issues] not focus on 100%-Board giving. Measuring 100%-Board giving is a wrong metric, as it says nothing about Board knowledge and diversity. “Their time not valuable?!” Ask major law firms to eliminate billable hours and only focus on “if you win, you get paid, not even admin billing if you lose” and see how far that goes.
These are our best practices, philosophy, and culture around Board members. Ready to partner with us in our adventure?!