The micro-managing board members show up to their first board meeting and before they have done anything of substance for the organization, they want to revamp the reports, review the nonprofit’s journal entries, question every expense, and critique the Chief Executive’s management style. One might rightly ask whether these activities are adding value. I would argue that nine times out of ten they are not.
HB 2592, which becomes effective on August 6, 2016 (Effective Date), amends A.R.S. §10-3708 to allow the delivery of member ballots through an electronic voting system. It is important to understand this change does not apply to director votes which do not have a written ballot option.
If I could point to the one decision my clients almost always end up regretting, it’s the decision to enter into a comprehensive management contract. Some management companies prey on nonprofits, taking control over the nonprofit’s operations and charging unreasonable fees for services of questionable value.
The group of individuals charged with the governance of nonprofits are often referred to interchangeably as directors or trustees. These terms are similar in that they both refer to the group of individuals who have a fiduciary duty to oversee the nonprofit organization. However, from a legal perspective, there are important distinctions.
The Guidance is clear “ charter schools must have nondiscriminatory student discipline policies implemented in a nondiscriminatory manner. The Guidance draws a distinction familiar in the area of employment law: disparate treatment and disparate impact. Under Title IV and VI of the Civil Rights Act as well as under Arizona law, charter schools must create and enforce a nondiscriminatory student discipline policy.
Whenever nonprofit directors, officers or staff members’ personal interests are impacted by their decision-making on behalf of the nonprofit, conflicts of interest can arise. All nonprofits encounter conflicts and all nonprofits need to understand effective conflict management.