Our organization operates with a small number of founding members who elect trustees and have veto power over the dissolution and distribution of assets (selling off land on which we operate). Is this sound governance, or should the founders be replaced with self-appointed trustees who hold all powers? A recent article in The Wall Street Journal addressed problems with trustees moving away from founders' missions and visions. Do founders provide a balance of power that helps keep an organization focused on its original mission and vision?
-Carter Randolph, Ph.D., Executive Vice President, Greenacres Foundation, Cincinnati, Ohio
I'm not in a position to judge whether your governance structure is sound. It may be what the founders wanted, and so they drafted the bylaws to reflect their desire. If you have concerns about the practical aspects, I suggest you consult an attorney with expertise in nonprofit law to see whether the bylaws are sound. If they are sound, then you are stuck with them, unless a number of the founders, as described in the bylaws, want to change them. Based on my experience, this is an unusual structure for nonprofit governance, as there will be challenges as the founders pass on, unless the bylaws address that problem as well.
Post a Comment
