I’m mostly worried about situations where the majority of the board is made up of different representatives of a single funder / donor. For the example of Claire—I think it’s fine that she represents OP interests to CEA. I’m more worried when the other board members and executives are also very strongly OP affiliated—then it seems like the nonprofits ability to carry out it’s mission is harmed. If a nonprofit has an appearance of independence but in practice is managed / owned by a different organization, that seems problematic. Of course, in the case of CEA, I have no idea what went into the decision making process and what the counterfactual looks like (for example—where there other people who wanted that role?), and it’s quite possible there are good reasons for this especially post FTX, so I’m less critiquing the results and more of a process that looks like philanthropy → nonprofit, but in practice is parent company → subsidiary.
Great post, I’m glad this is up for debate.
I’m mostly worried about situations where the majority of the board is made up of different representatives of a single funder / donor. For the example of Claire—I think it’s fine that she represents OP interests to CEA. I’m more worried when the other board members and executives are also very strongly OP affiliated—then it seems like the nonprofits ability to carry out it’s mission is harmed. If a nonprofit has an appearance of independence but in practice is managed / owned by a different organization, that seems problematic. Of course, in the case of CEA, I have no idea what went into the decision making process and what the counterfactual looks like (for example—where there other people who wanted that role?), and it’s quite possible there are good reasons for this especially post FTX, so I’m less critiquing the results and more of a process that looks like philanthropy → nonprofit, but in practice is parent company → subsidiary.