appointing people to Boards who have specific expertise relevant to the Board’s functions, following a Board skills audit / scope to identify needs and gaps (typically this involves accountants, lawyers, governance experts; it typically doesn’t include five moral philosophers and no one else)
conflicts of interest should be managed seriously. This would normally mean avoiding the appointment of people with significant conflicts of interest, rather than appointing them anyway and just acknowledging the conflict. For example, it would not be typical for a foundation to have a Board member who also sits on the Board of the 2-3 organizations receiving the largest grants from that foundation. It would also involve EA organizations appointing a diverse range of Board members, rather than a few people serving on multiple Boards
Boards that govern organizations and Boards that advise on where to make grants should not necessarily be made up of the same people
Boards should be adequately-sized to encourage a diversity of viewpoints and expertise; they should also seek a diversity of backgrounds to encourage this range of views (8 people with diverse backgrounds & expertise > 3 people with similar backgrounds & expertise)
Boards should actively manage risk and take appropriate steps to understand, monitor and mitigate risks. This includes things like reviewing financial reports at every meeting; and maintaining a risk register and reviewing it annually
Boards should actively assess and manage the CEO and other senior leadership, rather than simply deferring to their judgement
I agree. I’d aim towards a focus on a small set of clearly communicated, well-defined norms and practice. Done in a way that is manageable and not overwhelming.
Obviously we want this to be real and verifiable, not an exercise of ‘cover your rear/plausible deniability’ box ticking and lots of flowery prose. My fear from my time in academia and exposure to non-EA nonprofit orgs. But I think we can do this better in EA.
This includes things like:
appointing people to Boards who have specific expertise relevant to the Board’s functions, following a Board skills audit / scope to identify needs and gaps (typically this involves accountants, lawyers, governance experts; it typically doesn’t include five moral philosophers and no one else)
conflicts of interest should be managed seriously. This would normally mean avoiding the appointment of people with significant conflicts of interest, rather than appointing them anyway and just acknowledging the conflict. For example, it would not be typical for a foundation to have a Board member who also sits on the Board of the 2-3 organizations receiving the largest grants from that foundation. It would also involve EA organizations appointing a diverse range of Board members, rather than a few people serving on multiple Boards
Boards that govern organizations and Boards that advise on where to make grants should not necessarily be made up of the same people
Boards should be adequately-sized to encourage a diversity of viewpoints and expertise; they should also seek a diversity of backgrounds to encourage this range of views (8 people with diverse backgrounds & expertise > 3 people with similar backgrounds & expertise)
Boards should actively manage risk and take appropriate steps to understand, monitor and mitigate risks. This includes things like reviewing financial reports at every meeting; and maintaining a risk register and reviewing it annually
Boards should actively assess and manage the CEO and other senior leadership, rather than simply deferring to their judgement
I could go on, but you get the point.
I agree. I’d aim towards a focus on a small set of clearly communicated, well-defined norms and practice. Done in a way that is manageable and not overwhelming.
Obviously we want this to be real and verifiable, not an exercise of ‘cover your rear/plausible deniability’ box ticking and lots of flowery prose. My fear from my time in academia and exposure to non-EA nonprofit orgs. But I think we can do this better in EA.