[Foundation-l] Would you consider being on the Board?

[Anthony DiPierro]

On 6/11/06, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:
> Start with the Q&A's and work your way through the site. This is not  about
> attending seminars. This is about the basic responsibilities of Board  members.

There's a Q&A on the "Ten Basic Responsibilities of Nonprofit Boards".
 I won't quote it all here, but they include determining and
communicating the mission, choosing and overseeing a chief executive,
overseeing financials, and maintaining accountability.

I'd say that while the board chair should probably have extensive
experience, for the most part the main qualifications of the other
board members are moral integrity and a committment to the goals of
the organization.  I guess I'd add in lack of hubris.  So long as a
board member knows she's not an expert in something and is willing to
ask for outside help, I think she'll be just fine.  As the site says,
"Much of the work that a board does is accomplished through its
committees and task forces.  With the exception of the Executive
Committee, which acts on the board's behalf, committees recommend
action to the full board for discussion and action."  I'd say it's
these committees and and task forces that really need the experts.  If
the experts can also serve on the board, even better, but I don't see
why it's required.  When it comes down to it, the main thing that's
done by the board outside of a committee is that they discuss and
vote.

I also see a question about whether or not the Chief Staff Executive
should be a member of the board.  The answer mentions how "some feel
that board membership blurs the distinction between the board's
responsibilities and the executive's responsibilities and makes it
difficult for the board to assess the executive's performance
objectively."  Sounds like the situation Wikimedia has itself in right
now.

Anthony