Consuelo Castro of CEMEFI

Nancy White — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:50:46 +0000

Member:

Here is another interview with one of our fantastic Global Forum members. There are also two short podcasts associated with this interview, one in English and one in Spanish . If you would like to be interviewed, please contact us.

Consuelo, please tell us a bit about your work in NGO governance. What do you do?

As part of my function as coordinator of the Legal and Professionalisation Areas at the Mexican Center for Philanthropy (CEMEFI ), I conduct the board training program, which was launched in 1998.

The main objective of the program is to raise awareness regarding the role of governing bodies in strengthening and developing civil society organizations in Mexico. The program includes workshops, consulting and the translation of BoardSources booklets into Spanish.

I have organized more than 40 board training workshops and seminars along with local organizations in most of the important cities in our country. The attendants at these events have varied from 10 to 300 persons. As a result, this subject has gained importance among the nonprofit sector, and now organizations have realized the importance of selecting board members who are truly committed and willing to participate. And in the case of grassroots organizations, they are beginning to invite people to serve on the board who are not employed by the organization.

I also was responsible for the translation of BoardSource’s materials (into Spanish). These have allowed us to provide printed information on the principal responsibilities of governing bodies (of NGOs).

Board training has proved to be an efficient mechanism in encouraging public trust in nonprofit organizations.

What drew you to this work?

My desire to empower persons and nonprofit organizations has guided my professional experience. This desire moved me to ask myself what strategic issues could make a difference (in improving) organizational performance. Of course one of the answers is to have good leadership and governance. Therefore I have dedicated a lot of time and effort in my work to achieve these.

In all this training, what topics have people found most compelling and useful? What turns on the light bulb for them on governance issues?
Well, even if it sounds very simple, the definition of roles and responsibilities of the board and CEO are very important. They are the guidelines against which boards can assess their performance, clarify differences between their tasks and those of the CEO, and develop a common understanding of expectations and functions. Even long-term boards can detect points of improvement.

Another issue that is important (to cover in training programs) is the policy-making function (of the board). Boards do not write down the policies of how they should function, how to handle situations where conflicts-of-interest arise. Boards usually think this is important to cover in training. It prevents them from micro-managing the CEO.

Another thing I do is to have exercises during workshops, where they can see the difference between a solution reached when a decision is made individually and when it is made in a group. This way, they can realize the value of teamwork. Seeing the difference between decisions made as a group versus those made individually helps boards see the importance of reflecting on the values, results and outcomes of the organization. It can make a difference in their attitude towards their board work, and how they can help their boards adopt decisions in a collegial way. Those three things, even if very simple, boards have found them very useful.

So you are making explicit things people may know and recognize in other parts of their lives, as in their business life, but may not pay attention to in their role on the board?

Yes, exactly. You know, the weight of the board chair or president, and the weight of the CEO, are so important and so influential in the organization. But sometimes they forget the role of the board is not just to sit down and hear reports on how the CEO or the organization is doing. That is what they usually do. It is very interesting how the CEO reports and gives his perception of the organization--he has the complete image of how the organization is doing. But board members, as stewards, should learn how they can contribute through teamwork to the organization.

You are talking about really building that collaboration between board members and CEOs. If someone came to you and asked for your top three tips for board members, what would they be?

1. Agree on how to disagree. Good stewardship of an organization depends on how decision-making processes are performed by boards. If you have well-thought out mechanisms, then decisions will be better. Usually there is someone who talks louder, or has more a more influential character. Sometimes some board members don't feel they are taken into account, or there are conflicts. If there aren’t mechanisms to handle these situations, the board might lose energy or they might lose some board members, or even some nasty things might come up regarding the work of the board. You should think about using different mechanisms, such as determining when to have secret voting, or when to ask the CEO or another person involved in the decision to leave the room. You need to agree on how to disagree.

2. Don't be reluctant to ask. There are many cases where someone might make a motion on an issue or topic, and even if you are not sure of its impact, you are pushed to vote or make a decision. If there is something yet to be clarified, it is good to ask. The CEO might have the whole picture but the board member may not. Don't be afraid to ask. Sometimes it is a simple thing like a new organizational structure and the board members don't ask how this impacts budget, or who is going to be promoted and why.

3. Put it in writing. There are still cases where boards do not put their agreements in writing -- who is going to do what by when. This is especially true in policy-making. In Mexico at least, there are very few organizations that have their policies or codes-of-conduct in writing. I know that other things are more common to put in writing such as minutes, but some organizations even neglect to do that.

So those are the three things I think are most important: agree on how to disagree, don't be reluctant to ask, and put it in writing.

Crispin Gregoire Interview - Part 2

Nancy White — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:13:45 +0000

Last month we brought you the first part of an extensive interview with Crispin Gregoire, Ambassador to the United Nations for the Commonwealth of Dominica. Here is the second part of the interview. If you know of someone you’d like to see interviewed, or if you have a story to tell, please contact us!

Part 2

For an organization that is still in its early formation and/or that is still being led by its founder, are there some things that the board or the founder can do to strengthen the board?

Yes. First of all, it needs to be clarified to the members what their responsibilities are as board members, and that they cannot let other relationships come in the way from making rational decisions for the organization. You are not there to follow the founder, you are there to ensure that the objectives and mission of the organization are followed; you are not a cheerleader, basically. Let me say too that while this issue of the “dominant founder” is typically prevalent in self-perpetuating boards, even among boards that are elected by the membership, you still have that visionary problem because organizations don’t just get formed by themselves. Certain people take the lead to form organizations, whether the board is elected or appointed.

However, I find that in organizations where the board is elected, the people who are elected are not typically beholden to founders, not quite as much.

Do you think that this is this one of the key challenges for NGOs throughout the world?

Absolutely, absolutely. In my view, all countries have always had an NGO sector, but the proliferation of NGOs has been a recent phenomenon. So let us say over the last 20 years, we have seen an explosion in the creation of NGOs, especially of local NGOs. In the earlier stages, we had a lot of international NGOs such as CARE and Save the Children that operated internationally and had branch offices in different countries. Then we went through a phase, as the development assistance began to shift, where entities like USAID began to focus on supporting local NGOs. So you begin to see a proliferation of local NGOs, and all of that was fueled by the emergence and growth of civil society. So you now have a lot more NGOs from developing countries.

I assume that when the NGOs are younger, they are more prone to being dominated by a founding visionary or founding CEO?

Yes. For example, take a region where the NGO movement was stifled for many decades, such as the Eastern Europe region where you had communist regimes. After 1989 and the fall of the Berlin Wall, we saw a rapid rise of NGOs in that region. I wrote an article that came out in the journal of the European Foundation Centre, in which I was talking about governance problems in Eastern Europe, including issues of the founder CEO, and most people in that region told me that they agreed with what I was saying. (to see this article, go to http://ngoboards.org/resources/ngo_governance_in_central_and_eastern_europe_problems_and_needs?)

Are there any other common issues or challenges that come to mind?

One of the challenges for governance is, where do the resources lie, how do you mobilize them, and what is the role of the governance structure in that? I believe that it is a dual board-staff responsibility. Whether the organization has staff or not, the board must make it its responsibility to mobilize resources. A lot of times, boards have a real challenge figuring out where the resources lie. For every country, you must clarify where the resources are, because the answer varies from country to country. It’s not just the foundations that you seek funding from, it can also be government, it can be corporations and it can be people—just the average ordinary person who will attend a fund-raising event. So understanding where to get resources to ensure the survival of the organization is a common challenge to many organizations and boards. The third challenge has to do with evaluating the performance of the organization. Whether you have staff or not, you must address the question of how are we doing as an organization. And when you have staff, you must extend that evaluation to evaluate the chief executive. Typically, many of the CEOs in new organizations tend to be the founder. And that’s a big challenge for how the board evaluates that person.

So we’re back to the same problem of the founder CEO being such a force and influential figure in the organization. I take it that a strong, influential founder CEO, intentionally or not, can sometimes get in the way of how well the board evaluates him or her?

Yes. It’s two things: it’s evaluating (or not) the performance of the founder CEO, and secondly; it’s that person allowing (or not allowing) the board to become the governing authority.

What do you say to a board that has an influential, founder CEO that dominates the organization?

First, I would tell the board that they need to tell the CEO that one of their responsibilities is to evaluate his/her performance, and to agree on the areas of performance evaluation. There has to be an agreement between the board and the CEO, so that there will be no conflicts. Without an agreement, there is likely to be conflicts. If that person is not performing as a CEO, can you fire them? Well, it must be made obvious to that person that they are not working out. And that can cause a major split in the organization.

Are there any countries where NGO boards do not have the responsibilities of hiring/firing the chief executive?

No, that responsibility holds true across NGO sectors worldwide. But in the case of founder CEOs, it is the CEO who brought board members into the organization, rather than the board that hired the CEO. I always say that it is when the board hires its first CEO that the board really takes charge of the organization.

Do you have any idea of how prevalent founder CEOs are within NGO sectors around the world?

There are quite a few, but we are now seeing organizations transforming into this second stage of development, which is the institutional stage, where the founder has retreated. I tell the clever founder CEOs that, ideally, they should just be on the board and not be the CEO anymore. Or, if they are the CEO, they should reach a strategic kind of partnership with the board and accept that the board is bigger than they are. But a lot of founder CEOs have problems with that idea, and are not able to make the transition easily.

What I am saying cuts across countries, it really relates to the stage of development of the organization. I don’t say that the board must be governing right from the beginning, but there must be some definitive steps that assure that the board is moving from the founding stage to a mature organization where the board is the authority.

Is there a story that you could share with us about an organization that you worked with that achieved particularly good results?

I’ve worked with many boards, but one that stands out was the Zanzibar International Film Festival in Tanzania. I was working with BoardSource at the time, and we had received a contract from the Ford Foundation East Africa office to work with this group. At the time, it was an organization dominated, in this case, by its founding board chair. He totally dominated that organization. I visited the organization and spent initial time talking with the CEO and board members individually to understand their issues and challenges. Then, on a subsequent visit, I led them through a weekend board retreat. We discussed the role of the board, including the board’s role in fundraising, recruiting new board members, and transforming the board from where it was (a founder-driven board) to a new board (where the board collectively shared responsibilities and authority). They basically followed my recommendations, which were to retreat from the dependence on the founder and to diversify their funding base.

Was the founder board chair at this board retreat? And did he accept your recommendations?

Yes, he was at the retreat, and yes, he accepted my recommendations. Following the retreat, the board elected a new chair. This all happened about 5 years ago. I just went back this year, in 2007, because they invited me to be part of the jury. I met some of the new board members; they are strong and very active. The relationship between the new CEO and board—there is no conflict there. The founder is not so active now. He may even have left the board, which is a good thing, because it allows the board not to be dominated by him. The board has also effectively managed its relationship with the government. At first the government was a little leery of the organization, but now it has the full support of the government. They are now the second largest film festival in Africa. The number of people who come to Zanzibar for the film festival is amazing. And, I was really pleased to see that they are getting financial support for the corporate sector. They are now thinking about their long-term sustainability and establishing an endowment.

Do you think it is important for a board to hear from an outside individual?

Yes. It’s good for somebody to give them a reality check, especially if it a board consultant. As a board consultant, you have the privilege of interviewing the individual board members, so you can hear their perspectives on the problems, the successes, the challenges….you almost become a confidante. Once they are comfortable with you as the board consultant, then they will open up and allow you to tell them what you see as their problems. And, I mostly cast it into terms of “challenges”--what are the things that worry you as a board member about the organization.

Interview With Crispin Gregoire - Part 1

Nancy White — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 23:09:14 +0000

We recently interviewed Crispin Gregoire, Ambassador to the United Nations for the Commonwealth of Dominica. Prior to his position with the UN, Crispin was the Director of Global Programs for BoardSource. Crispin has also worked for Ford Foundation-West Africa, TechnoServe (Nigeria) and Save the Children (Dominica office). We asked Crispin about his work at the UN and how it connects with NGOs, and about his views on good governance for NGOs. This month we bring you part 1 of the interview.

Part 1

To get us started, please tell us about your role at the United Nations, where among other things you serve on the UN Committee on NGOs.

As the primary representative of the government of Dominica to the UN, I deal with all matters that relate to Dominica and the United Nations. This includes a broad range of issues, although the issues that are highest priority for Dominica are sustainable development, and development as a whole, as well as climate change, because issues of sea level rise and global warming have great negative implications for small island states like mine.

I sit on the UN Committee on NGOs, which is a committee under the Economic and Social Council, what we call ECOSOC. Each region of the world elects members to serve on the committee. I was elected in my capacity as a member of the group of Latin American and Caribbean states for a four year term which started in January of this year.

Please tell us more about the committee’s work, and the relationship that NGOs have with ECOSOC.

Let me start with some background. The last secretary general, Kofi Annan, embraced the great development of civil society. This is one of the defining characteristics of the post Cold War era, that civil society has been embraced by the United Nations. Before, the UN was strictly a forum of states, a sort of “club” of states. I think one of the attributes of Kofi Annan’s legacy is that he opened up the UN to civil society and NGOs.

So prior to that, NGOs did not have a role in the UN?

There were always a few NGOs involved, like the Red Cross, but it wasn’t like it is today. What really ushered in the broad involvement of civil society were the UN conferences on a number of global issues, which started in 1992 with the Rio conference on sustainable development, what was called the Earth Summit. A lot of NGOs were allowed to participate in that. Then following the Earth Summit there were a number of conferences such as the Beijing Conference on Women and the Social Summit in Copenhagen. So there were all these big global UN conferences, and civil society was allowed to participate like never below. Now you have over 3,000 NGOs that are in consultative status with the UN. To participate in the UN conferences, an NGO has to be in “consultative status” with the UN. And that’s where the UN Committee for NGOs comes in. The committee’s role is to oversee the applications of NGOs for consultative status, and review reports that they submit about their programs and operations.

Would you say that the UN Committee for NGOs serves as a checkpoint of accountability for these organizations?

Yes, absolutely. The committee can withdraw your status if you are not in compliance with the UN, with the obligations required to maintain consultative status.

As a committee, do you review the governance of these organizations?

Actually, that is not yet an issue area. In fact, I was the first one to raise this with the committee, and I just joined the committee! I think that we need to broaden the criteria to look at governance questions regarding NGOs that apply for consultative status with the UN, because in the current application there is no question regarding the governance structure of the organization, or, for example, how they are complying with their legal obligations per the laws of the states under which they are legally constituted.

The NGO sectors in many countries are developing Codes of Conduct, and governance is a big piece of that. What are your views regarding codes of conduct for NGO sectors, and do you think there are some criteria or standards that cut across all NGOs in a given country?

I have a preference for self-regulation, that is, that governments should allow NGOs to freely come up with what is mutually acceptable conduct for the NGO sector. When NGOs come together to agree on a code of conduct, it helps ensure that all NGOs in a particular country agree on the basic principles of operating. As part of that, the NGOs have to realize that they are acting in the interest of the public, that they are doing public benefit work, and that they must never violate that trust. They should also realize that what the government has given them is the legitimacy to pursue public benefit work. I think there are some basic things that NGOs need to do, and first, they must comply with the legal obligations that give them legitimacy.

By “legal obligations,” do you mean the laws of the country in which the NGO resides?

Yes. In all countries, NGOs are required to register, although there are those that are not registered. But whether you are registered or not, you must never forget that you are doing things for public benefit, and that status confers a certain public legitimacy, which every NGO must ensure that they don’t violate. First, it must be clear to the public what the NGO is doing and their raison d’etre for doing those things; and second, the NGO must be transparent in its work, especially with issues of finances. Whether it raises money in the jurisdiction where it is based or externally, through philanthropic contributions or from the government, these are public monies, so the NGO must be transparent with its finances.

By “transparent” do you mean that the NGO must have readily available documentation on how they are spending their funding?

Yes. Many countries require NGOs to submit a report to the registering authorities, on both their finances and their programs. I think that this is very important, because this is the way that the government can ensure that there is a repository of information that the public can go and look at. It’s not enough to publish an annual report, because that may not reach all of the people. There must be a place where any member of the public can go and look at your audited financial statements, for example.

Also, an NGO must have some kind of governing authority regarding how decisions are made. There must be people who undertake the responsibility to make decisions, and to represent to the public that organization. These are basic principles of accountability to the public.

Can you talk about some governance principles that go beyond the basics? What in your opinion are some of the key success factors to really good governance?

The first thing that makes a good board is that the board has evolved to a status where it is no longer dependent on the vision of the founder. I taught that a lot when I was working in developing countries. All NGOs start off with a visionary founder or founders. In the early stage of development, these visionaries tend to dominate the organization, and everybody follows the visionary or visionaries. The board doesn’t really have its independent development; the members who were brought on by the visionary tend to follow the visionary. Then there comes a time when the visionary withdraws, but the board is likely still weak, and its governance structure is still skewed toward the visionary. I emphasize the vital importance of visionaries, but there must come a time when the visionary allows the board members not to depend on the visionary’s perspectives anymore, but rather to develop their own perspectives based on the core values of the organization and its mission.

If you are approaching this concept of the key success factors to good governance, do you first need to look at your organization and its stage of development, because the answer is going to depend on where you are?

Yes, although I have seen some organizations make a quantum leap; within 5 years they had moved from the founding stage to a governing stage. It was a situation where the founder retreated. In the organization’s strategic plan, the founder planned his departure, he wanted the organization to live beyond him. In cases like this, the founders are able to say, “I was able to start this organization, I was one of the founders, and now I’m happy to see it flying. And now I don’t have to be there.”

How do you distinguish between the terms “governance” and “boards”?

For me, governance is that aspect of an organization that deals with how the organization is publicly accountable. It’s really about that. The board is one part, but also the staff is accountable to the public. It’s also that the program is driven by a public need, not just by someone who wants to have an NGO. And then the public must embrace the organization and its mission, so that they will support it. It’s also about complying with the governmental authority, because you don’t want to be duplicating what the government is doing, you want to have a strategic relationship between the organization and the governmental authority.

It sounds like what you are saying is that there is a staff role in governance as well.

Absolutely, there is a staff role in governance. Staff plays a role in ensuring that good governance is occurring. Sometimes that role is played through the CEO, who is technically part of the board, but the actions of the staff have a bearing on the organization’s public standing.

Perhaps one of the distinctions you could make is that while staff play a role in ensuring that good governance is occurring, the ultimate accountability for the organization, and the ultimate accountability that it is being governed properly, lies with the board.

Yes, I agree with that whole-heartedly.

Next month we’ll bring you part two of the interview, where Mr. Gregoire talks more about NGO founders other aspects of NGO leadership.

Interview with Tesse Akpeki (England)

Nancy White — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:51:11 +0000

This is the first in a series of interviews to learn more about our members and how they work with NGOs and their boards. A new interview will be featured each month. If you are interested in participating in an interview, please admin [at] ngoboards [dot] org (email us).

Our first interview is with Tesse Akpeki, a BoardSource alumni and consultant who works in the area of NGO governance.

Tell us a bit about your work in NGO governance. What do you do?

I work with boards to enable them to be even better boards. This may take the form of looking at their structure, processes, and systems. I work with the Chief Executive and the Executive Team, the Chair, the Governance committee to take things forward.

Are you a consultant? Do you work for yourself or do you work for an organization? Where is your “home base?”

I am a consultant. I am self employed and sometimes work by myself (which was what I have been doing when working internationally) and work with other consultants (eg when there is a need for a vast range of skills and perspectives). I also work as adviser to some firms, for example I am a lead adviser in OnBoard, a governance service established by Bates Wells and Braithwaite, a law firm in the City of London in England. The assignments I engage in are very variable. That is why I love what I do. Where possible, I write up the experiences, for others to learn from. I recently worked with an organisation called ActionAid which fights world poverty. It was an amazing experience.

That is a fantastic practice. How does this after action reflection impact your practice? Would you be willing to share some of your write ups on our new Global NGO Governance online community?

I worked as consultant with Action Aid for nine months, and there was so much learning, development, experience, relationship building. The trustees and the executive staff traveled to different countries for board meetings, so it very much felt like the ActionAid family changing the world to fight poverty. We explored the development of governance relationships , nurturing the board, going through transitional phases from the founding stage to adolescence; it was amazing to see the organisational life cycle being lived out in reality. ActionAid has great by-laws. The organisation has built in systematic board processes such as orientation, on-going support and development for board members, time to reflect on governance and terms of office. Over and above all this, there is a climate of continuous learning, improvement, development and innovation.

What were some of ActionAid’s key experiences How might other NGO’s benefit from their learning?

ActionAid moved its head office to Johannesburg. Operating from the South has been a trailblazing experience and shows that this is an organisation that really means business. The trustees work alongside staff to make things a reality. As a governance student, I learnt so much about how board and staff can lead together to make things possible. Editor’s Note: See the Guardian Article, “Room at the Top” April 2006

What drew you to this work?

My interest was kindled when I attended the BoardSource (then the National Center for Nonprofit Boards) events and gathering in 1995. It grew from there as I worked with various international directors on a range of exchanges. I then attended a number of BoardSource training sessions for consultants and felt better equipped to take things on. In 2004 BoardSource asked me to undertake an evaluation assignment in West Africa. I then undertook an assignment in Brazil for International Planned Parenthood and it was all go from there.

Wow, you work with organizations all over the world. What do you find in common about boards of directors? What are some of the differences you have seen?

I have not seen many differences. In Africa and South Africa I witnessed great passion. I guess the board members are more expressive and very creative in articulating issues on their minds and hearts. In various countries I see boards struggle with role definition, role clarity, with their responsibilities and how to fulfill them. When I worked in West Africa, I saw a hunger and thirst for good, simple up to date information for boards. Boards welcomed material produced by BoardSource with open arms. It was an emotionally rewarding experience to see how much good information, good support and advice can make a difference. It was also important to see the boards not as passive recipients of the information, but active participants in customizing material to suit their own needs. International boards tend to be very diverse in their composition, as board members are drawn from all over the world, board cohesion and board building is key, so that diversity is respected, but also to encourage the board to promote, engage and to have ownership of the mission of the organisation.

Diversity is an important strength for boards. What advice would you give a board seeking to really use it’s diversity to the fullest?

If you do what you’ve always done, you will get what you’ve always got. Diversity has to be strategic to make an impact. The organisation and the board needs to identify gaps on the board, be creative about how to fill those gaps, have criteria as the board recruits for selection, identify healthy retention strategies, find ways to engage all board members and have a sound board development programme to nurture the board. Board membership has to be fun and rewarding, so everyone feels part of something that is making a difference.

Finally, what advice would you give to someone who is just starting their career helping NGO boards of directors?
Wow, there is so much to say, so I will try to be brief. I think it is a calling to support and advise NGO boards. You’ve got to be really interested in doing this. You need to be able to research governance practices and procedures. You need to form sound links with other governance advisors. Programmes offered by organisations such as BoardSource and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations in England and OnBoard can help equip you with the knowledge and skills you need. Be a good listener, a good learner and a hard worker. You are only as good as your last job! In the words of Sandra Hughes, “if you have seen one board, you have seen ONE board”. A one size fits all approach can be extremely damaging.

The internet has made things much easier. Search engines deliver so much and on-line materials abound. Linking boards with up to date, accessible information, helping them to analyze what is going on and make sense of it all and giving them the tools to build their confidence will make you an invaluable asset to the board.

Subscribe to good journals, keep abreast of current regulation and policy changes and see governance as a means to an end not an end in itself. The Governance journey is a continuous one. Definitely prepare for the ride, but it is more than worth it!