Rosenzweig wanted to restructure the organization’s finances, as well as those of two related nonprofits, to make them all more self-sustaining. But despite his extensive financial and board background, he soon realized that he would not be able to build enough support among his fellow board members to pursue the changes he thought were needed. Only a few months after being elected, he resigned, without ever having taken office.

"The other leadership was really opposed to my philosophy, and they were dear friends," Rosenzweig says, "so in the end I had to make a decision to either blow up a friendship or step down. I took the easier route."

Boards play a critical role in the life of any nonprofit, but too often one or more members fall short and hinder or compromise the organization’s mission. It is not uncommon to find one or more directors who fail to contribute enough of their talents or means. Many nonprofits have discovered that the best route around these pitfalls is to choose board members with care.

No issue is more important to a nonprofit than securing financial resources. Charity board members quickly learn the mantra: Give, get or get out. "With some of the seasoned institutions, there’s an entry fee," points out Lewis B. Cullman, founder and former chairman of Cullman Ventures, who along with his wife, Dorothy, serves on the boards of the New York Public Library, Lincoln Center, the American Museum of Natural History, the Museum of Modern Art, the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the New York Botanical Garden.

Board veterans suggest that it is easier to avoid problems relating to this delicate issue before they arise by explaining the board’s expectations to potential members, rather than ejecting underperformers later on. Mark Volpe, the managing director of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, says the stickiest problems arise when board members have not been adequately apprised. "People lose their nerve. You’re asking them to join the board, and you forget to mention there’s a capital campaign coming or the meetings are x number of times," he says. "Communication is critical, and it’s better to do it early as opposed to having those awkward moments later."

Spelling out board responsibilities early also enables potential members to make an informed decision about whether they can commit. Explain what the service entails: attendance at meetings, participation on committees, donations and help with fund-raising, says Tim Seiler, director of the Fund Raising School at Indiana University’s Center on Philanthropy. Seiler is collaborating with BoardSource, a nonprofit that helps charities strengthen their boards, to offer best practices courses for nonprofit executives and board members.

Thinning the Herd
Large organizations often employ checks and balances to ensure adequate and consistent participation from their board members. The task is particularly daunting at the Boston Symphony Orchestra, which is managed by 32 trustees, 20 life trustees, 115 overseers and some 50 overseers emeriti, as well as a business leaders association and volunteer associations in Boston and Lenox, Mass. The orchestra uses term limits to help ensure a vigorous board. Overseers serve for three years and may be reelected three subsequent times, while trustees serve for five years and may be reelected twice. Volpe says the orchestra rarely requires someone to leave midterm, but if an individual is underperforming, he will ask the people who nominated that person to intervene. "It’s hard," Volpe says. "You’re talking at some point about lost social relationships, but you have to maintain that discipline. You owe it to the institution to really review your board."

TOP VIEW: Managing problematic board members is one of the biggest challenges for nonprofits. Veterans advise these organizations to attempt to head off problems by discussing their expectations with prospective members beforehand. Even the most proactive nonprofits can be sorely tested by conflict on the board; these situations often require a strong and diplomatic chairman who can mediate the issue or engineer an amicable divorce.

While some boards demand a specific amount of money from their board members, Seiler advises nonprofits simply to encourage prospective members to give as generously as they can; a mandated amount may be perceived as too high by some and too low by others. Another approach, he says, is to suggest that board members make the contribution one of the top three charitable gifts they make. Current board members should also inspire new appointees through their own generosity. "When they give themselves, that puts them in a position to be able to ask others to give," Seiler says. "An expectation of board membership is to give according to capacity."

Despite clear, upfront communications and best intentions, board members occasionally still fail to deliver. This dilemma sets up the chairman to play the heavy. "You hope that you have a chairman with some guts, who will take them to lunch and politely invite them to step down," says Martin Lehfeldt, president of the Atlanta-based Southeastern Council of Foundations.

A prestigious board enjoys more leeway in asking underperforming members to leave; the board chairman realizes there is an eager queue of people waiting for an opening. Smaller organizations struggling to find appropriate individuals, however, find that expulsions may not be an option. Many small and midsize charities recruit board members not simply for their pecuniary prowess– other attributes often take precedence. These organizations might engage an attorney for legal expertise or another individual for access to a robust list of contacts, notes Rusty Stahl, executive director of New York—based Emerging Practitioners in Philanthropy, which works with foundation staff and young benefactors to develop better giving practices. But all board members should be required to make some financial contribution, even if they give different amounts. Charities should make it clear that "we want you to give something significant on your scale," Stahl says. "The point is full participation."

Or the Highway
Rosenzweig always asks potential board members to relate their expectations. Yet even an open discussion of both parties’ goals may not always guarantee a positive outcome. When disputes arise, sometimes the only option a board member has is to leave. Last year, Peter B. Lewis, a longtime supporter of the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum and its former chairman, resigned from its board. He discussed his decision on a philanthropy panel hosted by Milano The New School for Management and Urban Policy in New York last fall. He felt the Guggenheim should rethink its financial management and overall direction; the true turning point came when he organized a meeting of trustees to discuss his plans.

"That has been one of the most fascinating experiences of my philanthropic life," Lewis said. "I was in charge of the meeting, the pace of the meeting, I guided it, I made everybody talk–and I was overruled 29-to-1, just like that." He resigned shortly thereafter.

Although this proactive board member was unable to persuade his peers, few believe the Guggenheim had difficulty filling his vacancy. "Certain boards are sort of a social plumb to get on," Cullman notes. "You’re joining a club, so to speak, and it’s not uncommon for somebody who wants that to say, ‘What’s it going to cost me to get on the board?’" Today’s critical challenge for many boards, however, remains ferreting out whether that person can–and will–help foot the bill.

Elizabeth Harris is a staff writer for Worth.

Illustration by Ken Orvidas.