Should direct beneficiaries or their families serve on our board?

Many charity boards are made up almost entirely of clients or caregivers of clients. Most professional associations (as distinct from professional colleges) have boards made up solely of members; their bylaws may even require it. These board members bring passion for the cause and considerable knowledge. In such cases, conflicts of interest often have to be managed rather than completely avoided.

First, let me comment that any charity board made up of a single stakeholder group should review their recruitment practices. They are losing out on different perspectives and reach into the community, likely costing themselves donors, volunteers and other supporters, and quite possibly limiting their skill set through a reduced candidate pool. And they need other perspectives at the board table since they may be too close to certain issues to make good long-term or community-wide decisions.

If there are some clients or caregivers of clients on the board, the one conflict that must be avoided is giving preferential service to those individuals. Being a board member should not result in jumping the queue for service, paying a reduced fee, having more say in which staff member provides service, or having programs adjusted to fit the needs of the board member.

If there are only a few members of the board who are also clients, I recommend they recuse themselves from operational decisions that affect them. While some think recusal means just declaring a conflict and refraining from voting, an ethical recusal means complete avoidance of any discussions on the subject or attempts to influence the vote. That means leaving the room, since body language is such a major part of communication, avoiding parking lot or washroom discussions, and taking care not to learn who said what or who voted which way during an absence from the boardroom.

Sometimes board clients are going to be affected pretty much equally with all other clients, and there are too many such people on the board to consider recusal. Directors then, as always, must do their best to make decisions for the benefit of the organization and community rather than for themselves. Such decisions would include fee-setting, hours of operation, location of services, and other such program decisions, as well as priority-setting and budget allocation. All board members need governance training. Client board members may need extra information at the candidate stage and extra guidance on carrying out their board duties. Here are some additional partial solutions to consider:

• Delegate more operational decisions to the executive director, so directors are not faced with as many conflicts.
• If similar services are provided by a nearby charity, ask that board members be served by the adjoining charity rather than their own. That way, they can bring their community and client knowledge to the board without potentially intimidating a staff member or raising extra privacy concerns.
• Alternatively, suggest they serve a charity with a related focus rather than the one directly providing service – perhaps a research-based organization.
• Focus on recruiting past clients rather than current ones (this works particularly well for charities serving clients too young for board service, as well as for charities whose current clients are too sick or too stressed by coping with other challenges to serve on the board while receiving services).
• Help the client board members gain a wider perspective, as well as knowledge and skills, through non-program activities such as fundraising, strategic planning, the audit and risk management committee, and/or community outreach.
• Ensure the non-client board members do some direct service volunteering so they understand the programs better and are not dependent on the client board members when deciding how to vote on program issues. Make sure they understand that they have no board authority while carrying out non-board volunteering.

I trust you can choose from these ideas to find solutions that work for your organization.

Since 1992, Jane Garthson has dedicated her consulting and training business to creating better futures for our communities and organizations through values-based leadership. She is a respected international voice on governance, strategic thinking and ethics. Jane can be reached at jane@garthsonleadership.ca.

To submit a dilemma for a future column, or to comment on a previous one, please contact editor@charityvillage.com. For paid professional advice about an urgent or complex situation, contact Jane directly.

Disclaimer: Advice and recommendations are based on limited information provided and should be used as a guideline only. Neither the author nor CharityVillage.com make any warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability for accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information provided in whole or in part within this article.