The piano society in the town where I live has a 501(c)(3) charitable tax-exempt status. They are requiring that you give them $1,000 if you want to be a board member. Is this legal?
It is not unusual for a charity to require its directors to make an annual cash contribution to the organization. Some people think it should be a requirement for directors to “give, get, or get off.” Although I haven’t heard that language so often lately, there were many years where commentators said a director should have to give money, get money from others, or get off the board. The question is not so much whether it is legal (I know of no law making it illegal), but whether it is wise.
Requiring an annual financial contribution, especially a substantial contribution, can skew the characteristics of those selected to serve on the board. (See our report: “Increasing Gender Diversity on the Boards of Nonprofit Eds and Meds”) In a new era of diversity, equity and inclusion, more people seem to recognize the value of diverse experience and opinions on a board. Economic status is a form of diversity that may be particularly critical for an organization to understand those it seeks to serve and for its ability to carry out its mission successfully. Requiring a substantial annual contribution is likely to reduce the number of lower income directors who can or will serve.
Consultants will often argue that funders want to see 100% participation in annual giving by members of the board. I am not sure that many grantmakers actually ask that question. (The common grant application form of the Philanthropy Network [of grantmakers] of Greater Philadelphia, for example, does not ask that question.) And even if a grantmaker does ask, an organization can respond affirmatively if everyone gives a penny. Organizations that have a larger minimum, explicit or implied, often make exceptions for those who would have trouble meeting the expectation. But simply asking for the exception can make the recipient feel like a second class director, somehow less valuable than those who have the capacity to pay.
It is traditional and fine for an organization to expect its board members to contribute financially. But that expectation should not get in the way of having a diverse board of people with many other talents and experience to contribute.
Comments
I have served on Non-profit boards and have been in leadership positions at non-profits where I interact with board members. I agree with your comment about diversity and inclusion and not letting large contribution requirements get in the way of service. It's best practice to have something in the board members' job description that they give a financial contribution at a level that they are comfortable giving. I've seen this work well with some board members with larger capacity to give give substantially more and others who don't have large capacity give lessor amounts. I have experienced local/regional foundations that do ask the question "Do 100% of your board contribute financial to the organization?" or What percentage of board members contribute financially to your organization? I think the feeling is that if a board member is not committed enough to give something (even a small amount) then how committed are they personally to the mission. I have heard of Universities and other larger non-profits having an expectation of much larger expected gifts but I have not worked in that setting. I'm not sure how they are dealing with that from an equity and inclusion point of view.
My board has a requirement that all board members give a "personally significant" gift. That allows people of different financial backgrounds to contribute as they are able.
Our non profit organization, in effect since 2000, has never required a donation of Board members. Some members contribute and some do not.
However, we do require all Board members to participate by giving their time and expertise to the running of the organization and all events we hold during the year.
Add new comment