Reason to Know

U.S. Capitol building By Linda Crompton, president and CEO

As you may know, last year a Commission on Accountability and Policy for Religious Organizations was formed (at the request of U.S. Senate Finance Committee member Charles Grassley) to address some of the most challenging tax and policy issues involving religious organizations; its charter includes an examination of issues surrounding all tax-exempt organizations. I serve on the Commission as a representative of the nonprofit sector and recently articulated BoardSource’s position on excess benefit transactions for the Commission. You can find our position paper here; scroll to “Nonprofit Excess Benefit Transactions.”

The Commission posed questions regarding excess benefit transactions – meaning, essentially, overly generous executive compensation — for response. In all cases, the questions proposed higher standards for oversight of executive compensation: 1) changing the level of knowledge required for personal liability for approving excess compensation from “actual knowledge to “reason to know”; 2) assessing penalty taxes on organizations, in addition to individuals, that approve excess compensation; 3) replacing the “rebuttable presumption” protection with a provision stating that the steps involved in establishing the presumption constitute “minimum standards for due diligence”; and 4) whether new guidelines are needed for compensation studies, and whether there should be more disclosure of comparison data used.

In a nutshell, BoardSource and I disagree with all of the higher standards but the first. Our analysis of nonprofit executive compensation tells us that egregious pay is, thankfully, an uncommon problem that gets a lot of press when it does occur, and heightened standards are unnecessary and counterproductive, particularly when they threaten to penalize the organization and its ability to fund its services to the community.

So what heightened standard do we agree with? We believe that changing the level of knowledge by management (which includes the board) for liability for approving excess compensation from “actual knowledge” to “reason to know” is a good idea. Now, board members need to know we’re not throwing them under the bus here. We’re only saying that changing the standard to “reason to know” acknowledges the fiduciary duty that already exists. Board members need to know and approve their chief executive’s compensation and any other transaction that could be construed as excessive. No board member, as a fiduciary of an organization, should ever be able to claim when asked about the chief executive’s compensation, “I didn’t know!”

Not surprisingly, we also advocate for board education, to ensure that boards are keenly aware of that responsibility to know and approve compensation. What does your organization do to make sure your board knows its fiduciary responsibilities?


Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • Stand for Your Mission
  • About

    BoardSource is dedicated to advancing the public good by building exceptional nonprofit boards and inspiring board service. BoardSource strives to support and promote excellence in board service, is the premier source of cutting-edge thinking and resources related to nonprofit boards, and engages and develops the next generation of board leaders.

    To learn more visit
  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

  • Topics

  • Archives

  • Connect

  • © Copyright 2014 BoardSource | 750 9th Street, NW, Suite 650 | Washington, DC 20001-4793
    Phone: (202) 349-2500 or 877-89BOARD (877) 892-6273 | Fax (202) 349-2599

  • Please note: “Exceptional Boards” is committed to facilitating meaningful conversations about nonprofit governance and nonprofit sector issues and welcomes guest bloggers and reader comment. As a result, the viewpoints expressed here do not necessarily represent those of BoardSource, nor can we endorse the accuracy or reliability of any content linked from this blog.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 751 other followers

%d bloggers like this: