Boardroom Lessons
Non-profit board members need to understand the gravity of their positions.
January 31, 2007 at 07:00 PM
4 minute read
I found a law school exam blue book among my papers recently. It was for the final exam in Non-Profit Law and Management 102. I should have gotten an A.
Question 1 (20 points): Identify the legal issues presented by the facts.
Question 2 (80 points): Propose a practical course of action for the president of the non-profit organization.
These were the facts: A woman was elected to the nine-member volunteer board of her child's non-profit, day-care facility after being told, “It isn't any work–just a few meetings a year.” She became president a year later, just as the executive director's employment contract was up for renewal. A black mold was discovered in the building where about 65 pre-school children spent their days. Two of the children and one of the 15 faculty members developed breathing and skin problems, which they reported to the executive director. Not only does the school not pay rent for the building, it doesn't have a written lease with the landlord. The executive director, a man with 25 years experience in early childhood education, was friendly with and enjoyed the support of many parents, some of whom were also board members or former board members. Yet, some of the faculty complained about the executive director's management style and favoritism toward his friends' children.
Last year the treasurer discovered the executive director was paying himself more than the board had authorized and had handed out unauthorized bonuses to favored faculty members. The treasurer also discovered that the executive director had written several checks to himself, claiming they were reimbursements for his purchases on behalf of the school. At first he refused to provide receipts, but then he apologized and returned some of the money. The treasurer wrote up these facts for a presentation to the board's annual meeting, but several members were so upset with her for revealing the information they voted to prevent her from giving her report. The treasurer quit on the spot.
Meanwhile, a few parents told the president that the executive director had been fired from his two previous day-care jobs and security from his last job escorted him out of the building. When she called his prior employer she was told nothing because “that information is subject to a confidential settlement agreement.” When the president asked the executive director for detailed information about his previous job, he refused.
The board then refused the president's request to learn more about the executive director's background before renewing his contract, because it would be “unfair” for them to “go sneaking around” on him. One board member said an investigation would be irrelevant because “he was doing a good job now” and besides, “that is old information,” referring to his prior jobs. Another member dismissed the information about the confidential settlement agreement saying, “If it is confidential, the employer was probably in the wrong too.” Finally, another said, “Our job is to support the executive director, not micromanage him.” The board voted 7-2 to renew the executive director's contract with a raise in pay.
Answer to Question 1: There is no time to enumerate all the legal issues. This non-profit organization with a volunteer board has too many serious problems to waste time on paperwork. See my answer to Question 2 below.
Answer to Question 2: For godsakes! Quickly hire an attorney experienced in non-profit governance. Make sure the attorney has plenty of gray hair and ample gravitas. Then call a special meeting of the board for a presentation from your new attorney. He or she should give a forceful lecture about the legal duties of directors of non-profits, preferably with legal horror stories that will scare the board into realizing their volunteer positions come with serious responsibilities. Ask for resignations from those unwilling to accept those responsibilities. Call for another vote on the executive director's contract. Pay the lawyer without asking for a non-profit discount.
——
Bruce Collins is the corporate vice president and general counsel of C-SPAN.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Pre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute readPreparing for 2025: Anticipated Policy Changes Affecting U.S. Businesses Under the Trump Administration
Senate Panel Postpones Vote on Reconfirmation of Democrat Crenshaw to SEC
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250