by Nick Jacobs

Back in 1963 my philosophy professor challenged me to prepare an analysis of intrinsic (taking) versus altruistic (giving) behavior. My conclusion at that time was that there clearly was no such thing as altruism. No one did anything unless it was good for them. Even those individuals who so generously gave of their time, money or wisdom, did it because it made THEM feel a little better about themselves.

Interestingly enough, that sophomoric knowledge (I was a sophomore.) did not keep me from embracing a life in not for profit management. Throughout my career in the various nonprofit organizations with whom I have worked; education, arts, economic development, and healthcare, it has been clear to me that there are two types of people who volunteer, the givers and the takers.

When questions are raised regarding how much is personally too much to those individuals who are the takers, the answer is obvious, “You can never have too much.” But when the same question is posed to the givers, the answer is entirely the opposite, “We enter with nothing, and we should leave with nothing. We are here to serve mankind.”

Well, over the last thirty plus years, it has also become clear to me that controls are necessary in order to keep the takers in tow because, many of them have no boundaries in regards to their material needs, and not for profit organizations are not the appropriate setting for pursuing those endless needs.

After Enron there appeared to be a glimmer of hope relating to controlling these takers, and there also appeared to be a strong movement toward a Sarbanes-Oxley-type legislation for nonprofit's. That proposal has now evolved into a new proposal called the Nonprofit Accountability Bill. Unfortunately, it does not yet have enough teeth to be really meaningful.

Let’s examine carefully the rolls of our nonprofit board members and simply track back the amount of business done by their companies within the nonprofit corporation for which they volunteer. Then check to see if bids were solicited, if influence was not placed on executives in charge through board compensation committees and if the business/member excused him or herself from the meetings when these issues were being decided. The Nonprofit Accountability Bill proposed certain limitations regarding the amount of business that actually constituted a conflict of interest, but, it is relatively clear that those numbers have also not been activated.

Bottom line? Ask questions about your nonprofit boards. Thankfully, for the past ten years I have worked for a board that is free of conflict, but this clearly is not the norm.

The difficult proposal that requires you to buy board member products, embrace their services, and use their consultants in order to ensure that they will be good board members is not acceptable behavior in a world that needs our help.