There's been a lot of discussion in Australia lately about the increasing trend in the charity sector of board members needing to be able to bring in donations and whether or not that should be a selection criteria. Another area of contention is whether not for profits (NFPs) should remunerate their board members more than just expense reimbursement.
The argument for is that if you want to attract the best talent to really make a difference to strategic direction, enhanced governance and overall leadership then you need to pay. But shouldn't there be an abundance of highly skilled business leaders who once they have made their money are keen to dedicate their time and expertise in the NFP sector through board roles?
The latest research from Grant Thornton US shows that 4% of NFPs are now paying their board members. Is this an increasing trend?
It’s a little-known fact that some not-for-profit board members are being compensated beyond expense reimbursement. There are many reasons for this. Nonprofits may do it to attract and retain unique skill sets, compete with public or private companies for board talent in some markets, or to be fair about extraordinary time and effort expectations or exposure to high-risk levels