Some board members believe a substantial financial gift is part of nonprofit service.
Others fear that requirement will exclude people the board needs.
Carver and Charney open chapter 6 of The Board Member’s Playbook with the conflict.[1]
The board should decide the expectation in policy before recruiting the next member.
A hidden standard is unfair. A token requirement on paper paired with social pressure in the room is worse. Candidates deserve to know whether giving is required, how much discretion exists, and how financial participation relates to other board work.
BoardSource recommends that every board member make a personally meaningful contribution and treats full participation as an important signal to other funders.[2] “Personally meaningful” solves part of the equity problem because equal commitment need not mean equal dollars.
I would avoid a wealth test for governance.
The board needs judgment, connection to ownership, character, time, perspective, and skills. A fixed gift large enough to impress major donors may remove community members whose lived knowledge is essential to the board’s legitimacy.
I would also avoid pretending money does not matter.
A trustee asking others to support the mission should be able to say that every member participates according to capacity. Personal investment can deepen credibility and shared responsibility.
A sound policy might require each member to make an annual gift that is meaningful to that person, with the board aiming for 100 percent participation. The amount remains confidential or known only to those who must administer it. No member receives greater authority because the gift is larger.
The board may add a “give or get” expectation. I would use caution. Members differ in networks, culture, disability, work rules, and access to wealth. A rigid target can turn relationships into transactions and narrow recruitment.
If fundraising activity is required, name the range of acceptable contributions: introductions, stewardship calls, event attendance, storytelling, prospect research, advocacy, or a financial gift. Then separate board accountability from staff supervision.
The Chief Governance Officer should address nonparticipation privately and consistently. The development staff should not be asked to discipline trustees.
The board should revisit the policy when it evaluates composition. Who was discouraged from serving? Who carries an unequal burden? Does the expectation help the organization or merely reproduce an inherited custom?
I would ask four questions:
What behavior are we trying to produce?
What signal do funders actually need?
Who would be excluded by the rule?
Can every member meet the expectation with integrity?
There is also an Ends question. Board money is not the purpose of the board. If fundraising pressure consumes ownership linkage, policy work, and monitoring, the board may be financing the mission while neglecting governance.
You can hold two truths.
Every trustee should invest personally in the work.
Not every trustee has the same financial capacity.
A mature board writes an expectation strong enough to mean something and broad enough to honor both truths.
The size of a gift may reveal generosity.
It does not measure the size of a member’s voice.
I would separate the giving conversation from the election vote whenever possible. A prospective member should not have to disclose personal finances to the whole board to prove worthiness. The governance committee can explain the expectation and confirm willingness without ranking candidates by capacity.
The annual board assessment can report participation as a group. Publicly comparing gift amounts creates a hierarchy the board does not need.
Footnotes
[1] Miriam Carver and Bill Charney, The Board Member’s Playbook (Jossey-Bass, 2004), rehearsal 6.1, pages 190–193.
[2] BoardSource, “Personal Contributions”.
Additional reading
BoardSource’s The Nonprofit Board Answer Book discusses board giving, fundraising expectations, and equitable recruitment.
Richard P. Chait, William P. Ryan, and Barbara E. Taylor’s Governance as Leadership helps boards value members for judgment and leadership, not only financial capacity.