Previous |
Next |
March 27, 2008, 09:51 AM ET
Should Donors Elect a Charity's Board Members?
Should donors elect a charity’s board members?
Sean Stannard-Stockton writes on the Tactical Philanthropy blog that giving donors voting rights would increase their involvement — and the size of their gifts.
“I think that donors should not tell nonprofits how to operate on a daily basis (part of the reason why I favor unrestricted giving), but I do think that nonprofits should be accountable to donors,” he says. “I would guess that if donors were given voting rights, that they would be more engaged and likely to give more money over time.”
Jeff Brooks responds on Donor Power Blog: “I think it’s a dynamite idea, even though the choice of board members is not likely to be very exciting to most donors. Really, on what basis would the average donor choose one board member over another?”
“Even so, I’ve never yet seen giving donors power of any kind not work. My guess is very few donors would exercise their proxy vote,” he says. “But that they’d appreciate the chance, and that would lead to more giving, higher gift amounts, and better retention.”
An anonymous poster writes on Mr. Stannard-Stockton’s blog, however, that donors don’t necessarily deserve such a big say. “What about the community’s voice in their organization? Should nonprofits really be beholden mostly to their donors?,” the writer asks.
David Lynn wonders on Mr. Stannard-Stockton’s blog if charities should be run more like public companies. Would “it work for non-profits to actually issue “shares” just like a public company? The shares have a price, so instead of asking for your $35 membership, you ask them to buy one share,” he says. “The price can be set based on the performance of the charity, to tie it back to the metrics, and reset annually or some other basis. Or even a new “exchange” could be created??”
What do you think?
Add Your Comment
Commenting is closed.