Article Governance 4 min read
Disabled Veterans National Foundation: The Cost of a Neglectful Board
The reputation of a veterans' charity took a hit last week for working with two direct-mail vendors that heavily profited from donations. The vendors are paying the price, but the problem started with the board.
Heads up: this content is over 5 years old, so some information may be out of date.
If youâre looking for a way to quantify the effect of a disengaged board, hereâs one notable data point: $24.6 million.
Last week, the New York Attorney Generalâs office announced that whopping figure (opens in a new tab) as what a pair of direct-mail firms would be required to pay as part of a settlement for its work for the Disabled Veterans National Foundation (opens in a new tab). DVNF launched in 2007 as a spinoff group from the National Association of State Womenâs Veterans Coordinators, ostensibly to collect funds supporting wounded veterans.
As the New York Attorney Generalâs settlement revealed, practically nothing of the sort happened: 90 percent of the funds flowing into DVNF went to pay the direct-mail firms (opens in a new tab). It may be that the nonprofit world obsesses too much about overhead costs (opens in a new tab) as a measure of success, but DVNF was disastrously mismanaged no matter how you look at it.
Some or all of the Founding Members failed to ask for or review any detailed fundraising analyses or projections.
And to see how that happened, look at the board.
Three Failures
The Attorney Generalâs settlement document (opens in a new tab) is fascinating and dispiriting reading, laying out a host of red flags. Among the problems with DVNFâs leadership:
1. Everybody was a bit too friendly. The agent for one of the direct-mail firms, Larry Rivers, was a friend and neighbor of DVNFâs president, according to the report, âand he was acquainted with other directors of NASWVC as well.â Thereâs little evidence the DVNF did much research into the companies it signed on with.
2. The board was inexperienced at nonprofit management and what would be required to meet its mission. âWhen DVNF was established,â the report says, âits five Founding Directors, who were themselves military veterans, worked as veterans benefits coordinators for their respective home statesâ Departments of Veterans Affairs.â Moreover, the board had no experience with the kind of direct-mail fundraising activity it approved.
3. The board was passive, bordering on neglectful. It took the DVNF board nearly two years to hold an in-person meeting, according to the report. Once it had hired a direct-mail firm, it provided little to no oversight: âAmong other things, some or all of the Founding Members failed to ask for or review any detailed fundraising analyses or projections; failed to review each of the fundraising appeals sent out in DVNFâs name; delegated to DVNFâs fundraisers the handing of most accounting matters, including the retention of the organizationâs outside auditors; and failed to maintain a ledger of the organizationâs receipts and payments.â
An Expensive Mess
The failure of DVNFâs board is an extreme one, and its members are paying for it: The settlement requires that four DVNF board members resign, and that they be permanently barred from working or volunteering for nonprofits in New York state. In the meantime, the settlement asks that DVNF find five new directors, âwith the objective of adding to its board new directors with experience and skill in the areas of accounting, not-for-profit administration, social services and board governance.â
But if DVNFâs case is an extreme one, itâs still a bracing reminder that any nonprofit board is susceptible to its problems; Iâd venture to say that every association has to work through one of those three problems listed above, even if the problem isnât (yet) toxic.
Late last month, former association executive Kerry Stackpole, CAE, listed some suggestions for assembling an effective board (opens in a new tab). All of the ideas are worth reading, but the one that struck me in this case was Stackpoleâs demand that associations be clear about what the job demands. âOftentimes, nominating groups will âbrush overâ the workload and responsibilities of the position to entice potential candidates,â he writes. âDoing so diminishes both the values of the work and its importance in the recruitâs mind. If your non-profit Board does important work, demands long hours or has high expectations, say so without apology.â
DVNF needed a board that recognized what was needed to do its job, and the willingness to put the time into it. Ensuring you have those people aboard before you start can only help you meet your missionâif nothing else, avoid being part of a very public and very expensive mess.
(iStock/Thinkstock)
Comments
Comments are for ASAE members. Learn more about comments on this site.
Log in to your member account or join ASAE!