Board Recruitment Doesn’t End When Someone Says Yes

How to onboard new board members so they understand the work, find their place, and stay engaged

The biggest mistake boards make with onboarding new members is simple: They do not do it.

Organizations can spend months identifying prospects, holding conversations, evaluating candidates, and persuading the right people to join. Then the person says yes, and everyone acts like the work is finished.

Maybe the new member receives a binder. Maybe someone walks through the bylaws, organizational chart, and meeting calendar. Then they are dropped into their first board meeting and expected to understand everything.

That is not onboarding. That is an information dump.

Orientation explains the organization. Onboarding helps someone become part of it.

The difference matters.

A new board member needs to understand the mission, finances, programs, strategic plan, bylaws, staff structure, expectations, and governance responsibilities. But they also need to learn the culture, customs, relationships, history, and unwritten rhythms of the board.

That cannot happen in one hour.

Do not leave future board members waiting

There is often a strange gap between recruitment and election.

An organization recruits early, identifies a strong candidate, and gets an enthusiastic yes. Then the candidate waits for weeks or even months before formally joining the board.

During that time, very little happens. They are not receiving updates. They are not invited into conversations. They may not know what is happening in the organization they have agreed to help lead. By the time they attend their first meeting, they are already behind.

Keep prospective board members connected. Share appropriate organizational updates. Invite them to events. Introduce them to staff and other board members. Consider inviting them to observe a board meeting before they are elected so they can experience the organization and understand how the board operates.

Some people may wince at inviting a future member into a meeting before the formal vote. I do not.

There are certainly matters that need to remain confidential, but most board business does not need to be treated like a state secret. Bringing candidates in early helps them make an informed decision and helps the organization determine whether the relationship is truly a good fit. It also tells the candidate, “We already see you as part of this community.”

Onboarding should be a series, not a session

Every new board member needs to understand the organization’s mission, finances, strategic plan, bylaws, programs, staff structure, fundraising model, and board culture. That is a lot.

Trying to cover all of it in one orientation session guarantees that much of it will be forgotten. New members do not yet have enough context to know which details matter or what questions they should ask.

Start with the basics, but keep going. A strong onboarding process might include:

• An initial orientation to the mission, programs, structure, and governance

• A separate conversation about finances and how the organization earns and spends money

• A review of the strategic plan and current priorities

• Meetings with key staff members

• Committee placement and an explanation of the committee’s work

• Conversations about fundraising, attendance, preparation, and community engagement

• Regular check-ins during the first six months

The goal is not merely to provide information. It is to help the new member understand how all the pieces connect and where they fit within the work.

Expectations should not be a surprise

Board expectations should be discussed during recruitment, not revealed after someone joins.

New members should already understand expectations related to attendance, preparation, committee service, fundraising, personal giving, events, and serving as an ambassador for the organization.

Onboarding is the time to reinforce those expectations and show what they look like in practice. What does meaningful committee participation involve? How should members prepare for meetings? What does fundraising support actually mean? Which events are board members expected to attend? How should they talk about the organization in the community?

Do not assume that someone understands simply because the expectations appeared in a recruitment packet. Say them clearly. Discuss them. Reinforce them. Give examples.

People are more likely to meet expectations when they understand why those expectations exist and how their participation supports the mission.

Give every new member meaningful ways to engage

Every board member should serve on a committee, meet the staff, and spend time learning the organization. These should not be optional pieces of onboarding.

Committee service gives a new member a smaller setting in which to build relationships, understand the work more deeply, and begin contributing. Meeting staff helps them understand who does what and prevents the board from viewing the organization only through reports and financial statements.

At the same time, do not rush to give a new member a major assignment before they understand the organization. Give them meaningful ways to participate, but also give them room to learn. The objective is not to keep someone busy. It is to help them become useful, connected, and confident.

One hour is not enough

I once joined a board alongside several other new members during the COVID pandemic. We received one orientation session. The organization gave us the bylaws, reviewed its structure, and sent us into our first board meeting.

That was it.

The new members did not understand the history behind current decisions, the nuances of the programs, or the context surrounding the issues on the agenda. We asked questions that could have been answered through a stronger onboarding process.

That frustrated some of the existing board members.

But the new members were not the problem. We were doing exactly what new members should do: trying to understand the organization we had been asked to govern. The problem was that we had not been given the context we needed.

COVID made relationship-building more difficult, but the same problem happens in person. A binder and a one-hour presentation cannot replace an intentional process. When new members repeatedly ask basic questions, it may not mean they failed to prepare. It may mean the organization failed to prepare them.

Give every new member a board buddy

One of the best onboarding practices I have experienced is assigning each new member a board buddy.

A buddy gives the new member someone to call with questions they may not want to ask during a full board meeting: Why does the board handle this issue this way? What happened before I joined? Is this discussion normal? Who should I contact about this? What am I expected to do next?

The buddy can also check in before and after meetings, make introductions, explain board culture, and help the new member find ways to engage.

I served on a board that used this model exceptionally well. More than 95 percent of board members returned for a second term, and every member completed their first term. The buddy system was not the only reason for that success, but it played an instrumental role. People felt welcomed, connected, and supported. They were not expected to figure everything out alone.

Onboarding belongs to the board too

Staff members certainly play an important role in onboarding. They can explain programs, operations, finances, partnerships, and the organization’s current priorities.

But onboarding should not become another responsibility placed entirely on the executive director or CEO.

The board chair has a role. The governance committee has a role. Existing board members have a role.

The board chair should welcome the new member, explain how the board functions, reinforce expectations, and check in regularly. The governance committee should manage the process, monitor progress, and make sure each person is finding a meaningful place within the board. Board buddies should provide connection and informal support.

This is part of the work of board leadership.

Being board chair is not simply running meetings. Chairing the governance committee is not simply presenting a slate of nominees once a year. These leaders are responsible for building and sustaining an effective board. That includes helping new members succeed.

Keep checking in

Onboarding should continue throughout at least the first three to six months.

Do not wait until someone resigns or quietly disengages to ask how things are going.

The board chair, governance chair, buddy, and appropriate staff members should create several opportunities to check in. Ask questions such as:

• Do you feel informed about the organization and its priorities?

• Do you understand what is expected of you?

• Do you know whom to contact when you have a question?

• Are you finding meaningful ways to contribute?

• Is there anything about the board culture or process that is unclear?

• What additional information or support would help you?

These conversations do more than help the new member. They help the organization identify gaps in its own systems.

If every new member is confused about the finances, improve the financial orientation. If committee roles are unclear, strengthen committee expectations. If people do not feel connected, create more opportunities for relationship-building.

Onboarding should improve with every class of board members.

Recruitment gets someone to say yes. Onboarding helps them stay.

Recruiting strong board members takes time, relationships, and intentional effort. Losing them because the organization failed to welcome, educate, and engage them is entirely avoidable.

Do not stop when someone says yes.

Bring them into the organization early. Give them context. Introduce them to the people and the work. Reinforce expectations. Place them on a committee. Assign a board buddy. Check in more than once.

A new board member should not simply know what the organization does. They should understand how the board contributes, why their role matters, and where they can make a difference.

Because orientation explains the organization. Onboarding helps someone become part of it.

Taking Time Off Is Part of the Job

If nonprofit leaders wait until nothing is urgent, they will never step away

I took two full weeks away from work this summer.

Not “away” while checking email every morning. Not “vacation” with my laptop nearby just in case. I actually left, traveled, and tried to disconnect.

I needed it.

Before I left, I was waking up thinking about everything: how much money we had, who had registered for events, whether we were engaging enough people, how staff metrics were moving, and what might need my attention next.

I was not just doing my job. I was mentally doing everyone else’s job too.

I knew what every employee was working on. I was checking registration systems to see who had signed up. I was watching the numbers and monitoring the work instead of waiting for the people responsible for it to update me.

That may feel responsible. It may even feel like leadership.

But it is also exhausting.

And if I am being honest, there was some guilt, some fear, and definitely some control wrapped up in it.

The work continued without me

Here is what happened while I was away:

Nothing.

There may have been one minor issue, but it was not even worth calling a crisis. The team handled the work. Decisions were made. Programs continued. The organization did not fall apart.

The biggest challenge was not whether they could function without me.

It was whether I could stop wondering if they could function without me.

I still felt the urge to check in. I still wanted to know what was happening. But after some time away, something started to shift.

When I returned, I was not immediately checking Eventbrite to see who had registered. I was waiting for the staff member responsible for the event to tell me.

That may sound like a small thing. It was not.

It meant I was allowing people to own their work and expecting them to keep me informed, rather than constantly monitoring it myself.

That is healthier for me. It is also healthier for the organization.

A strong number two matters

One of the things that made stepping away possible was having a strong second-in-command.

This matters in organizations of every size, but it may matter even more in small nonprofits. When the executive director or CEO leaves, someone still needs the authority to make decisions.

If no one knows who is in charge, even routine questions can become emergencies. Staff hesitate. Board members get involved in operational decisions. The executive keeps checking in because everyone is waiting for them.

A strong number two does not mean creating a complicated leadership structure. It means being clear about who has authority, what decisions they can make, and when something truly needs to reach the executive.

It also means the executive has to let them lead.

That may be the hardest part.

Boards have a responsibility too

Nonprofit executives often struggle to disconnect because the board does not stop working when the executive goes on vacation.

Board members have their own schedules. They may use a leader’s time away to catch up on questions, send ideas, or make requests. The executive logs in after a few days and finds a full inbox waiting.

Sometimes the board does not understand the organization’s PTO policies. Sometimes it understands the policy but does not respect the executive’s preference to actually be left alone.

Boards need to take this seriously.

A board’s responsibility is not just to evaluate the executive, review finances, and approve policies. It also has a responsibility to support sustainable leadership.

That means respecting time off. It means empowering the executive to lead. It means not creating a culture where constant availability is treated as proof of commitment.

Some of the best policies I have seen include a sabbatical after a certain number of years of service. Ten years is a common example.

I love the philosophy behind that: you have done good work, and we want you to take a real break.

But honestly, we should not have to wait ten years to recognize that nonprofit leaders need rest. If you keep an executive for ten years, you are already incredibly fortunate. Support should begin long before that.

Most things are not true emergencies

Nonprofit leaders often work in environments where the mission feels urgent. Political developments happen. Funding concerns emerge. Community needs do not pause because someone is out of the office.

Some situations truly do require immediate attention.

Most do not.

We can convince ourselves that every request, complaint, deadline, or uncomfortable moment needs the executive right now. Often, it can wait. Someone else can respond. A decision can be made without us.

And if the organization truly cannot function for a week or two without one person, the problem is not the vacation.

The problem is the structure.

That is a signal that the organization needs clearer systems, stronger delegation, better documentation, and more shared ownership.

Taking time away is leadership work

I do not believe taking a vacation magically solves burnout. I still worried while I was away. I still thought about the organization. I still wondered what I might find when I returned.

But I also rested. I experienced something new. I came back with more energy and a little more perspective.

Most importantly, I saw that the work could continue without me personally monitoring every piece of it.

That is good leadership too.

Taking time away is not abandoning the mission. It is not a lack of commitment. It is part of making sure you can continue doing the work without becoming consumed by it.

Leaders need time to step back. Staff need the opportunity to lead without the executive looking over their shoulder. Boards need to support a culture where rest is respected rather than quietly punished. And organizations need systems strong enough to keep moving when one person is not there.

I worried every day I was gone.

I am also already thinking about where we might go next year.

I think both things can be true.

Stop Filling Board Seats. Start Building the Board You Need.

How nonprofits can recruit board members with purpose, clarity, and strategy

One of the biggest mistakes I see nonprofits make with board recruitment is treating it like a vacancy problem.

There is an open seat, so the organization looks for a person to fill it.

Someone raises their hand. Someone expresses interest. Someone knows someone who might be willing to join.

And because board recruitment can be hard, the organization says yes too quickly.

I get it. When someone is enthusiastic about your organization, that feels good. You want people who care. You want people who are willing to help. You want people who say yes.

But enthusiasm alone does not automatically make someone the right board member.

Board recruitment should not be about filling seats. It should be about building the board your organization actually needs.

Do not take just anyone

This may sound obvious, but it happens all the time.

A person expresses interest in joining the board, and the organization gets excited. Instead of slowing down and asking whether the person is truly a fit, the board moves quickly to bring them on.

That can create problems later.

Board service is a real commitment. It takes time, attention, judgment, and follow-through. A board member should understand the mission, the expectations, and the work ahead. They should bring something useful to the organization, whether that is expertise, perspective, relationships, lived experience, fundraising ability, community credibility, or a willingness to show up and do the work.

Someone can be excited about the mission and still not be the right fit for the board.

That does not mean they should be sent away. Maybe they would be great on a committee. Maybe they could volunteer. Maybe they could help with an event, make introductions, or serve on a task force. Sometimes the best move is not “no.” It is “not this role right now.”

And that is okay.

Names are good. Names are not enough.

Another mistake I see is recruiting for names.

To be clear, names matter. People with networks, followings, relationships, and community credibility can absolutely help grow an organization. A well-known board member can open doors, bring visibility, and help others take the organization seriously.

That can be valuable.

But recruiting someone only because of their name is not enough.

A board member with a great title who never shows up, never engages, never gives, never asks, and never champions the organization is not strengthening the board.

They are taking up a seat.

You need people with passion. You need people who care about the mission. You need people who understand why the organization matters and are willing to use their time, talent, relationships, and voice to help move it forward.

A résumé can be impressive. A title can be helpful. But passion is what keeps people engaged.

If you have someone on a theater board who hates theater, it is not going to work. They will not show up with energy. They will not be a champion. They will not naturally talk about the work in the community.

You cannot replace passion.

Stop recruiting only from your friends

Many boards end up recruiting from the same small circle of people.

Board members ask their friends. Staff ask people they already know. The organization looks around the same rooms, networks, and events. And before long, the board starts to reflect a very narrow slice of the community.

I understand why this happens. People like spending time with people they already know and trust. It feels easier. It feels safer. And board recruitment is hard enough without trying to build new networks.

But if you only recruit from your existing circle, you will keep getting the same perspectives, the same connections, and often the same gaps.

Good board recruitment requires intentional networking on behalf of the organization. It means asking: where should we be building relationships? Who is not in our orbit yet? What communities, sectors, neighborhoods, generations, professions, or perspectives are missing from the table?

That work takes time.

Which is why board recruitment should not begin when a seat opens. It should be ongoing.

Do not recruit for a role without thinking about the person

Another common pattern is recruiting for a specific technical need.

“We need a new treasurer, so let’s find an accountant.”

That can make sense. Boards need financial skills. They need people who understand budgets, risk, oversight, and financial statements.

But be careful.

Sometimes people do not want to do on a volunteer board exactly what they do all day in their paid job. The accountant may not want to be your treasurer. The attorney may not want to review bylaws. The marketing professional may not want to manage social media. The event planner may not want to plan your gala.

They may still be fantastic board members. But if you recruit someone only for a narrow function, you may miss what they actually want to contribute.

Skills matter. But alignment matters too.

Ask what they are interested in. Ask how they want to help. Ask what kind of board work energizes them. The right fit is not just about what is on their résumé. It is about what they are willing and excited to do for the organization.

Be honest about expectations early

This is one of the biggest pieces of advice I can give: be honest about board expectations at the beginning.

Not at the end.

I once watched a board go through multiple conversations with a potential board member. The person was interested. The mission alignment was there. The passion seemed real.

Then, near the end of the process, the organization finally explained the expectations around board meeting attendance and fundraising. There was a significant give/get requirement, and the person was not able to meet it for a variety of reasons.

The board lost the candidate.

But more than that, they lost time. The candidate lost time. And the organization missed an opportunity to find another way to engage someone who clearly cared about the mission.

Had those expectations been clear up front, the conversation could have gone differently. Maybe the person was not right for the board. But maybe they could have served on a committee, joined a volunteer group, helped with outreach, or supported the organization in another meaningful way.

Be clear early about:

• Meeting attendance

• Committee service

• Fundraising expectations

• Personal giving expectations

• Event participation

• Ambassador or outreach expectations

• Time commitment

• Term length

• What board members are actually expected to do

This is not about scaring people away. It is about respecting everyone’s time and setting people up to succeed.

Diversity cannot be a checkbox

Many organizations are trying to be more intentional about building boards that reflect the communities they serve. That is important.

But it also needs to be done with care.

Sometimes boards get isolated in who they know. They want to diversify, but they keep recruiting through the same networks. Other times, people from underrepresented communities are recruited in ways that feel tokenizing, especially when a funder or external requirement pushes the organization to meet a particular percentage or standard.

Representation matters. A lot.

But people should not be recruited simply to check a box.

Boards should be asking deeper questions: whose voices are missing? What lived experiences would help us make better decisions? What communities should be part of shaping our future? How do we build real relationships before we ask someone to join? Are we prepared to make this a board culture where new voices are actually heard and valued?

Recruiting more diverse board members is not just about who you invite in. It is also about whether the board is ready to share power, listen differently, and change because of the perspectives at the table.

“We just need more people” is not a strategy

Sometimes a board looks around and says, “We just need more people.”

Maybe attendance is low. Maybe committees are thin. Maybe staff need more help. Maybe the same few board members are carrying too much.

Adding people can help.

But adding people for the sake of adding people is not a strategy.

I watched one board add seven people in one class. A year later, only one was left.

They had recruited quickly. They had not onboarded well. They had not found the right people or clarified expectations. The result was predictable: people drifted away.

Board recruitment is only one part of the process. Onboarding matters. Engagement matters. Committee placement matters. Relationship-building matters. Helping new board members understand the organization, the culture, the expectations, and the work matters.

If you bring people onto a board without setting them up to succeed, do not be surprised when they do not stay.

Start with what the organization needs

Before recruiting anyone, the board should slow down and ask better questions.

What does the organization need right now?

What will it need in the next few years?

What skills, perspectives, relationships, and experiences are missing?

What kind of work do we need board members to do?

Who understands the mission and can help us move it forward?

Who will add something we do not already have?

Who is ready to participate, not just lend their name?

This is where tools like a board skills matrix can help. I will write more about that in a future post because it deserves its own conversation. A good matrix can help boards think more intentionally about skills, demographics, lived experience, networks, and strategic needs.

But the tool is only useful if the board is honest about what it needs and willing to recruit beyond the usual suspects.

Build the board, not just the roster

Board recruitment is strategy work.

It is not just filling open seats. It is building the group of people responsible for helping govern, champion, sustain, and strengthen the organization.

That means being thoughtful. It means being honest. It means being clear about expectations. It means looking beyond names and titles. It means recruiting for passion, commitment, perspective, and the ability to do the work.

The right board members can help an organization grow, think differently, build relationships, raise resources, and make better decisions.

The wrong board members, even with good intentions, can create confusion, disengagement, or frustration.

So before you fill the next open seat, pause.

Ask what your organization actually needs.

Ask what work this board needs to do.

Ask who is ready to help do it.

Because the goal is not simply to have more board members.

The goal is to build the board your organization needs next.

Stop Asking Whether You’re a Working Board or a Governing Board

Every nonprofit board has work to do

One of the nonprofit phrases that makes me twitch a little is this: “We’re a working board.”

Not because I dislike the idea. Quite the opposite. I want board members who are willing to work.

What frustrates me is the way people talk about “working boards” and “governing boards” as if they are two completely different things. As if one board rolls up its sleeves and does the work, while the other sits around a table, nods thoughtfully, approves a budget, and disappears until the next meeting.

That is not how this should work.

In my view, every board is both a working board and a governing board. The balance may shift depending on the organization’s size, stage, staffing, resources, and needs, but every board has governance responsibilities. And every board has work to do.

The better question is not, “Are we a working board or a governing board?”

The better question is, “What does this organization need from its board right now?”

All boards govern

Every board has a governance role. That does not change because an organization is small, volunteer-led, newly formed, or still figuring out its systems.

At a basic level, boards are responsible for setting policy, approving budgets, providing financial oversight, electing board members and officers, making major organizational decisions, and ensuring the organization is acting in alignment with its mission.

That is governance.

It is not always glamorous. It is not always exciting. But it matters. Governance is the structure that helps protect the organization, sustain the mission, and make sure decisions are being made with care.

So when people say, “We are not really a governing board. We are a working board,” I get nervous.

Because all boards govern. The question is whether they are governing clearly, intentionally, and responsibly.

All boards work

At the same time, I do not love the idea that a “governing board” somehow means board members do not have work to do.

They absolutely do.

Board members should not just show up to a meeting, listen to reports, vote on a few things, and consider their job done. Board service should require engagement.

That work may look different depending on the organization, but it often includes helping raise funds, supporting the mission, showing up at events, promoting the organization, making introductions, serving on committees, engaging other supporters, offering expertise, and being a visible champion for the work.

A board member does not need to run the organization. That is not the point.

But they do need to participate in strengthening it.

A board that leaves everything to the executive director or CEO is not being strategic. It is being absent. And that absence shows up quickly, especially in areas like fundraising, community visibility, relationship-building, and organizational credibility.

The phrase “working board” can scare people away

One of the places this gets tricky is board recruitment.

I have heard organizations describe themselves as a “working board” with the best of intentions. They are trying to be honest. They want prospective board members to understand that there is real work involved.

That is fair.

But the phrase can land differently than intended.

Some people hear “working board” and immediately think the organization is disorganized, understaffed, or not at a stage of professional growth. They may picture a board that is doing everything because no one knows who is responsible for what.

Sometimes that may be true. But often, the organization is actually growing and becoming more professional. The work just looks different.

Instead of saying, “We are a working board,” organizations should be more specific:

• Board members are expected to serve on a committee.

• Board members help open doors for fundraising and partnerships.

• Board members attend key events.

• Board members support community outreach.

• Board members bring their expertise to strategic questions.

• Board members help strengthen the organization’s visibility and credibility.

That is clearer. It is more useful. And it helps people understand what kind of work is actually expected.

The goal is not to scare people off. The goal is to be honest about engagement.

“Governing board” can become an excuse too

The flip side is just as important.

Sometimes “governing board” becomes a polite way of saying, “We do not really ask the board to do much.”

That is a problem.

A board can be very clear about governance and still be deeply engaged. In fact, the best boards usually are. They understand their role. They focus on the right level of decision-making. They do not micromanage staff. But they also do not disappear.

They ask good questions. They show up. They help build relationships. They support fundraising. They bring their networks, skills, and perspective to the work.

A governing board that is too hands-off can leave the executive director or CEO carrying too much alone. That may work for a while, but over time, it can lead to burnout, missed opportunities, weaker fundraising, and a board that does not fully understand the organization it is supposed to be governing.

Good governance is not passive.

The work changes based on what the organization needs

This is where the nuance matters.

A new or small organization may need board members to do more hands-on work. They may be helping plan events, manage outreach, build systems, or directly support operations.

A growing organization may need the board to shift more toward structure, strategy, fundraising, and oversight as staff capacity increases.

An established organization may need the board to focus more on long-term sustainability, risk, leadership, major partnerships, and strategic direction.

An organization in transition may need something else entirely.

The work changes. That does not mean the board stops working. It means the work evolves.

The board should regularly ask:

• What needs to get done?

• What role should the board play?

• Where can board members’ expertise help?

• What should staff own?

• What should committees or task forces handle?

• What requires full board governance?

Those questions are much more useful than trying to label the board as one type or another.

Clarity matters more than labels

The problem is not whether a board is “working” or “governing.” The problem is when no one is clear about what those words actually mean.

Board members need to know what is expected of them. Staff need to know where board support is helpful and where board involvement becomes interference. The executive leader needs partners, not passive observers or surprise micromanagers.

If board members are expected to raise money, say that. If they are expected to attend events, serve on committees, make introductions, support advocacy, advise on strategy, or help with community visibility, say that.

Do not hide behind vague language. Be specific about the work.

A better question for your board

So the next time someone asks, “Are we a working board or a governing board?” try asking something different:

What does our organization need from this board right now?

That one question opens up a much more useful conversation.

Maybe the organization needs board members to help with fundraising. Maybe it needs stronger financial oversight. Maybe it needs clearer committee structure. Maybe it needs board members to stop doing staff work and focus more on strategy. Maybe it needs board members to show up more visibly in the community.

Maybe it needs all of the above.

The answer may change over time. That is okay. Boards should evolve as organizations evolve.

At the end of the day, I believe this pretty strongly:

All boards govern. All boards work.

The best boards understand both parts of the job. They take their fiduciary and governance responsibilities seriously, and they show up as active champions for the organization’s mission, sustainability, and future.

The work may look different from one organization to another. It may change from year to year. It may shift as staff capacity grows or as the organization moves through different stages.

But there is always work to do.

The real question is whether the board is clear, aligned, and honest about what that work should be right now.

Board Minutes Are Not a Transcript

One of the biggest mistakes I see with board meeting minutes is simple:

People write too much.

Way too much.

They try to capture everything everyone said. Every comment. Every question. Every back-and-forth. Every moment of discussion. Suddenly the minutes read less like an official record and more like a screenplay for a very niche nonprofit governance drama.

That is not what board minutes are supposed to be.

Board minutes are not a transcript. They are not a recap of every word spoken. They are not a place to preserve every personal opinion or side conversation.

Board minutes are the official record of what the board did.

What was decided? What was approved? What action was taken? Who was present? Were conflicts disclosed? Were votes recorded? What follow-up was agreed to?

That is the work of minutes.

Minutes should record decisions, not every comment

To me, good board minutes should focus on decisions and actions.

That does not mean they should have no context. A little context is helpful. Trust me, it matters later.

At some point, someone will look back and ask, “Why did the board do this?” Good minutes should provide enough history to understand the issue and the decision. But that does not mean you need two pages on every discussion.

A few toplines are usually enough.

For example, instead of writing:

Phillip said this. Sarah responded with that. Michael asked this question. Linda disagreed. Then Sarah clarified. Then someone else raised another point.

You might write:

Discussion centered on the financial impact of the proposal, alignment with the organization’s strategic priorities, and questions about implementation timeline.

That is cleaner. It captures the substance without turning the minutes into a transcript.

It also reinforces an important point: when the board makes a decision, the board makes the decision.

Yes, you should record motions, votes, abstentions, and conflicts. But in general, I do not love attributing every comment to individual board members. The board acts as a body. The minutes should reflect that.

What minutes are actually for

Let’s be honest: very few people are curling up on a Saturday morning with a cup of coffee to read board minutes.

I get it. I type a lot of them.

But minutes matter. A lot.

They are an important record of the organization’s activity and decision-making. They help preserve institutional memory. They create accountability. They show what the board approved, what actions were taken, and what direction was given.

They also matter for very practical reasons. Auditors may ask for board meeting minutes. Funders may ask for them. Attorneys may review them. Future board members may need to understand why a decision was made.

If a contract was approved, the minutes should show that. If a major policy changed, the minutes should show that. If the board approved a budget, adopted a strategic plan, entered executive session, or noted a conflict of interest, the minutes should show that.

Minutes are vitally important, but for the right reasons.

They are not there to prove everyone talked.

They are there to show what happened.

What should always be included

Good minutes do not need to be complicated. They just need to be clear.

At a minimum, board minutes should include:

• The organization name

• The date, time, and location of the meeting

• Who was present and who was absent

• Whether a quorum was present

• Approval of prior minutes

• Key reports received or reviewed

• Motions made

• Who made the motions

• Votes taken and whether motions passed

• Abstentions or recusals

• Conflicts of interest noted

• Executive sessions, if held

• Agreed-upon action items

• Time of adjournment

I personally like knowing who made a motion. That helps create a clean record. And I absolutely want abstentions or recusals noted, especially when there may be a conflict of interest.

If someone abstains because of a potential conflict, put that in the minutes.

That is not extra detail. That is good governance.

What should usually be left out

Just as important as knowing what to include is knowing what to leave out.

Board minutes usually do not need:

• Side conversations

• Personal opinions

• Every comment made during discussion

• Who said what in every debate

• Detailed back-and-forth

• Informal jokes or asides

• Long summaries of reports already included in the board packet

Again, this does not mean minutes should be so thin that no one can understand what happened. But they should not become a running commentary.

A good test is this:

Would this detail help someone understand the decision, action, or official record of the meeting?

If yes, include it.

If no, leave it out.

Do not let minutes take over the next meeting

Here is another place boards can get stuck: approving the minutes.

Please do not spend 20 minutes wordsmithing minutes in the next board meeting.

The board should review them for accuracy, not perfection. If there is a factual error, fix it. If a motion was recorded incorrectly, fix it. If someone was marked absent but was present, fix it.

But do not let the board dwell forever on whether one sentence could be slightly more elegant.

Minutes are a summary of activity. They are not a literary project.

Do not let perfect get in the way of good.

A word for board secretaries

If you are a board secretary and you are nervous about getting minutes right, you are not alone.

It can feel intimidating. You are trying to listen, capture the right information, follow the flow of discussion, and make sure the official record is accurate.

My advice: focus on actions, not every word.

Before the meeting, review the agenda. Know where decisions are likely to happen. During the meeting, listen for motions, votes, action items, recusals, and major themes of discussion. After the meeting, clean it up while it is still fresh.

You do not need to capture everything.

You need to capture what matters.

Better minutes make better governance easier

Good minutes are usually boring in the best possible way.

They are clear. They are accurate. They are focused. They show what the board did and why it mattered.

They do not create confusion later. They do not attribute every stray comment. They do not become a transcript no one wants to read.

They help the organization remember its decisions, demonstrate accountability, and keep moving forward.

So the next time you are writing or reviewing board minutes, remember this:

The goal is not to document every word.

The goal is to create a useful record of the board’s work.

And that is more than enough.

Your Board Meeting Is Not a Committee Report

One of the most common problems I see in nonprofit board meetings is also one of the easiest to fix: Committee reports take over the meeting.

You know how this goes. Materials are sent out in advance. Committee reports are included. Everyone arrives at the board meeting. Then a committee chair proceeds to read the report out loud, word for word, to the full board.

I have watched this happen. On one board, the Finance Committee report had been sent out ahead of time. Then, in the board meeting, the Finance Committee Chair read the whole thing to everyone anyway.

Not summarized. Not framed around a decision. Not focused on the key questions.

Read. Out. Loud.

And you can feel the room change when that happens. People stop paying attention. They tune out. Phones come out. Eyes glaze over.

Even worse, over time, board members stop reading the materials in advance because they assume everything will be repeated in the meeting anyway. Then they also stop paying attention during the meeting because the meeting is mostly repetition.

So now the board is getting the worst of both worlds: they are not prepared before the meeting, and they are not meaningfully engaged during it. That is a problem. Because a board meeting should not be a live reading of reports people could have reviewed ahead of time.

Board meetings should focus on what the board needs to do

A good board meeting should be centered around a few clear questions:

• What does the board need to decide?

• Where does the board need to provide strategic insight?

• What requires board oversight, direction, or action?

• What conversation needs the full board in the room?

If something does not require a vote, discussion, strategic input, or action, it probably does not need much meeting time.

That does not mean the board should be uninformed. Quite the opposite. Board members need good information to make good decisions.

But being informed is not the same thing as governing.

The board should know that the gala date and location are set. That can go in a written report.

The board probably does not need to spend 15 minutes hearing a verbal update on the venue, menu, program flow, and who has RSVP’d so far.

But if the gala has a major budget gap? That may need board attention.

If sponsorships are lagging and board members need to help open doors? That belongs in the meeting.

If there is a bigger strategic question about whether the event is still worth the time, cost, and staff capacity it requires? Absolutely bring that to the board.

The difference is simple: do not just report activity. Bring the board something to do.

Not every update is board-worthy

A committee met. A program is moving forward. A contract was signed. An event date was confirmed. A staff member gave an update. A partner was contacted.

Those things may matter. They may even belong in the board packet. But they do not automatically belong on the board agenda.

The question is not, “Did something happen?”

The question is, “What do we need from the board?”

• Do we need approval?

• Do we need discussion?

• Do we need strategic guidance?

• Do we need help from board members?

• Do we need the board to understand a major risk, opportunity, or shift?

If the answer is no, put it in writing and move on. That may sound harsh, but it is actually respectful. Respectful of the board’s time. Respectful of staff time. Respectful of the work that really does require attention.

Use three simple labels: information, discussion, decision

Before something goes on the agenda, the board chair and executive director should ask a basic question:

• What is this item?

• Is it for information?

• Is it for discussion?

• Is it for decision?

Those three categories can change the entire feel of a board meeting.

If it is for information, it should usually be in a written report, committee report, CEO report, dashboard, or consent agenda.

If it is for discussion, give the board enough context in advance to come prepared. What is the issue? What options are being considered? What are the pros and cons? What kind of input would be helpful?

If it is for decision, make the decision clear. What exactly is the board being asked to approve? What recommendation is coming forward? What background does the board need to act responsibly?

Too often, board agendas are just a list of topics. But a topic is not enough.

“Finance Committee Update” tells me almost nothing.

“Discussion: Options for Addressing a $25,000 Budget Gap” tells me what kind of conversation we are having.

“Decision: Approve Revised Event Budget” tells me what the board needs to do.

That clarity matters.

Give board members time to do their job

If you want better board engagement, send materials early enough for people to actually read them. This sounds obvious, but it is one of the most common mistakes I see. Organizations get into the habit of waiting until every single document is ready, then sending the board packet the night before the meeting.Then everyone is surprised when board members have not reviewed it.

Board members are volunteers. They have jobs, families, responsibilities, and full lives outside of your organization. If we want them to come prepared, we have to give them a realistic chance to prepare.

That means sending materials in advance, not at the last minute.

It also means not being afraid to share the real substance ahead of time. If there is a major decision coming, share the background. Share the options. Share the pros and cons. Give people time to think.

Some people process quickly in the room. Others want to review the details before they speak. I am one of those people. I do not love weighing in immediately on something if I do not yet understand the details.

Good preparation makes better conversation possible.

Better agendas create better meetings

The board chair and executive director play a critical role in shaping the agenda.

A strong agenda is not a list of everything that happened since the last meeting. It is a tool for focusing the board’s attention on what matters most.

Before adding an item, ask:

• What do we need from the board on this?

• Does this require full board discussion?

• Is this tied to mission, strategy, finances, risk, or leadership?

• Could this be handled in writing?

• What would make this conversation useful?

If the agenda is mostly committee updates and staff reports, board members will tune out. Not because they do not care, but because the meeting has not been designed for their engagement.

People are more likely to participate when they understand why their perspective is needed.

Try this at your next board meeting

You do not have to overhaul everything at once. Start with a few practical changes.

First, use a consent agenda at the beginning of the meeting. Include committee reports, routine approvals, and informational updates there. Ask if anyone has questions or wants to pull an item for discussion. Otherwise, adopt the reports and move forward.

Second, send materials early. Not the night before. Give board members a realistic chance to read, reflect, and prepare.

Third, limit each meeting to one or two major decision points or strategic discussions. Give those items appropriate time. Send background in advance. Include the pros and cons. Be clear about what kind of input or action is needed.

Fourth, label agenda items as information, discussion, or decision. This small change helps everyone understand why the item is there and what role they are expected to play.

The goal is not a shorter meeting. It is a better one.

A better board meeting is not just about saving time. It is about using the board well.

It is about making sure board members are informed, prepared, and engaged in the right conversations. It is about creating space for the decisions and strategic questions that need the full board’s attention.

Committee work matters. Reports matter. Updates matter.

But the full board meeting should not be a replay of every committee meeting that already happened.

It should be where the board does the work only the board can do.

Because when board meetings are focused, strategic, and useful, board members are more likely to show up prepared, ask better questions, and help move the organization forward.

And that is the whole point.

Practical Nonprofit Leadership, Minus the Jargon

If you’ve spent any time in the nonprofit world, you’ve probably met at least one “expert.”

Sometimes it’s the consultant who shows up with a framework you’ve never heard of, tells you everything you’re doing wrong, and leaves behind a 42-page report no one will read.

Other times it’s the board member who joined two meetings ago, read one article on governance, and now has very strong opinions about how everything should work.

We’ve all been there.

So let me start here: I am an expert, but not that kind of expert.

My expertise comes from 20 years of actually doing this work: leading organizations, working with boards, serving on about a dozen boards myself, and facilitating more meetings, retreats, and planning sessions than I can count.

Through all of that, I’ve learned this: most nonprofits don’t need someone to make the work sound more complicated. They need someone who understands how the work actually happens.

The messy parts. The human parts. The “we have 12 priorities and no time” parts.

That’s why I’m starting these posts.

Some of the best sessions I’ve ever been part of haven’t been formal presentations. They’ve been simple “Ask Me Anything” conversations with boards and leadership teams. What are you seeing work at other organizations? How can we improve this? What are the best practices we should know? What would you do differently?

Those are my favorite conversations. No overproduced slides. No jargon. Just real questions, practical answers, and a chance to help people see what might be possible. That’s where things actually move forward.

This space is going to be an extension of that. I’ll share practical board governance guidance, strategic planning insights, membership and engagement strategies, lessons learned, and plenty of thoughts on what I’ve seen work, and what definitely did not.

Some posts will be tactical, like how to structure board meeting minutes. Others will be more direct, like why your strategic plan isn’t going anywhere. All of it will be grounded in real experience.

And this is not just for executive directors or nonprofit staff. It’s for board chairs, board leaders, and board members who want to do this work well. If you’ve ever sat in a meeting thinking, “There has to be a better way to do this,” you’re in the right place.

More than anything, I want this to be useful. So send me your questions. Seriously.

Ask me about board minutes, executive sessions, strategic planning, board recruitment, disengaged board members, messy agendas, unclear roles, or the difference between governance and getting the work done.

Wondering if your board meetings could be better? Trying to figure out how to recruit the right people? Not sure what best practice actually looks like in real life? Send it my way. If you’re asking the question, someone else probably is too.

Nonprofits do some of the most important work out there. When boards and leadership are aligned, clear, and functioning well, everything gets easier and more impactful.

That’s the work I care about. I genuinely love this work. Give me a room, a board or leadership team, a Diet Mountain Dew, and a set of real questions, and I’m in.

My hope is that this space gives you practical ideas, useful tools, and a little reassurance that you are not the only one trying to figure this out.

I’m glad you’re here. I hope you’ll read along, send questions, and take what’s useful back to your own organization.

And if at some point you want someone to sit in a room with your board and help work through it? That’s still my favorite thing to do.