Benjamin Melancon asks an interesting question in the comments section of a recent entry. He asks in my broader experience, how common are arts organizations with elected boards rather than recruited board members.

His particular organization, Amazing Things Arts Center has decided the “only way to begin to answer those questions of balancing money and contacts versus effort and representation, or stability versus fresh talent, or anything else, was to have our board elected by the membership.”

My answer to him is, in my broader experience, I don’t really know of any. I do know of non-arts non-profits that have elected boards–more on that in a minute. I would be interested to know if anyone else has had experience with elected board vs. appointed. Email me or add a comment.

I think perhaps the operative term in his question might be “community arts organization.” This may be something that is more workable in a smaller scale arts operation. The current capital fund drive Amazing Things is doing is for $30,000. It is easier to eschew the bucks and buddies board orientation if you aren’t in need of a great deal of money. They may find that things change in the future.

But it does bring up an interesting point worth examining. The one thing that a recruited board has over an elected one is that if you do the vetting properly, you will ensure that the people on the board are philosophically aligned with the goals and mission of the organization. If they don’t then you have no one to blame but yourselves.

You don’t have the same assurance with an elected board. The best illustration of this fact with a non-profit is the Sierra Club. The last two year’s elections have been contentious battles between factions within the club accusing each other of lying to either stifle progressives or promote a racist, anti-immigration agenda depending on which side you are on.

There are such concerns about people trying to stack the deck in their favor by getting their friends to join the Sierra Club, there are proposed amendments to their by-laws removing spaces for write in candidates from the ballot and requiring people to be members for a full year before they can run for a board position.

You don’t want to think that will happen in your organization when you are starting it up and it probably wouldn’t for many years. However, looking at Amazing Things Arts Center’s bylaws (and I am only using them as an example because I don’t know of any other arts organizations) all one needs to do is get their friends to pay the $25 membership fee the day before an election or meeting to stack the member attendance in their favor to elect or remove a board member. Since proxies are not allowed, it might be difficult to rally enough support to combat this if one sees this sort of thing coming only the day before.

That being said, the whole process in an membership elected board is much more transparent than it is in an appointed board. Also, the membership feel a greater investment if they can identify with the board member. If power shifts in an appointed board and someone is ousted, it can be difficult to get the membership at large outraged.

Whereas if a large portion of the membership is at a meeting where tensions are running high because $500 was shelled out to allow 20 new people to vote, that is something you remember the next time around. (On the other hand, it can undermine confidence in the organization much more than kicking a vaguely known board member off a recruited board)

So pros and cons to both approaches. I am other folks can think of more. On the whole though, keeping people interested and invested in your organization is a good thing. It is even better if you can get people interested and invested whose bank accounts accrue interest that can be invested.

Having the voices of a number of somewhat less wealthy people to advocate for you can be valuable as well. When I was working in South Jersey, Subaru of America which has its HQ in Cherry Hill, NJ was celebrating its 30th anniversary by giving away 30 cars to 30 causes. They had their employees vote on which organizations to give cars to and the place I was working at got one because of those votes. (I gotta say, those are some pretty nice cars)

I really liked some of what I saw on Amazing Arts Center, so much so that I am gonna devote my next entry to it.

Artsjournal.com had a link to an interesting article on boards today because it deals with some misunderstanding and misconceptions about serving on a non-profit board.

The article from the Tacoma, WA News Tribune is pretty interesting just as a story about how boards of trustees have and have not been instrumental in the closing of area arts organizations.

But as I mentioned, the even bigger value is in first hand perceptions and actions of board members who came to realize the job was more involved than they expected or had been lead to believe. At the same time, the story is a testament to the dedication of board members. One board member took six month leave from her law office to work full time on reviving Seattle’s ACT Theatre.

There is also a fairly broad feeling about how much fundraising board members should do.

When TAG closed, board president Mike Jones said he’d seen fund raising as chiefly a staff job. He said it was a matter of principle – that requiring members to give or raise a fixed amount would amount to ‘buy(ing) their position on a board’ – unfairly limiting membership to the elite.

TAM’s board, like many, uses a sliding scale, said vice president Judith Nilan. Each donor is expected to raise or give a certain amount. The museum calculates these in advance, and can afford to admit only a certain number of members at lower levels so the board can meet its annual group donation of $100,000.

“Most boards have a give-or-get policy, and if they don’t, they should,” Donnelly said. “What are you there for, your good looks’ I’m serious. You bring your skills and talents to a board, but the organization needs resources.”

The old phrase is “give, get or get off,” and trustees’ best donations are connections, said Clare Dowdall, an award-winning fund-raiser who was development director at the Cleveland Playhouse, Alley Theatre in Houston and the American Lung Association in the Southwest.

Unfortunately, the most idealistic view is attributed to the person associated with a failed organization. There are plenty of fairly successful organizations with that same philosophy. Most organizations have to place practicality before idealism though.

I also like the article for the way it mentions the pitfalls of an unbalanced staff-board relationship- the uninvolved board vs. the micromanagers, the immovable fixtures vs. the constantly changing members with no institutional memory.

Probably the moral of the entire article is for boards not to be afraid to ask questions and really dig into the financial/managerial health of an organization.

I have discussed board resources in the past one of the best online resources is BoardSource.org. The value of their FAQ section isn’t so much in the questions it answers, but in the issues it gets you thinking (and asking more questions) about.