Law & Governance
Lessons for Not-for-Profit Boards
While Grasso and Langone have both denied the allegations against them, attorney Michael Peregrine, a partner in the Chicago office of McDermott Will & Emery, says that the case highlights the need for not-for-profit boards to consider just how much discretion they give their CEOs, especially on the hot-button issue of executive compensation. "You don't have to become adversaries," he says. "But there is something to be said for the exercise of constructive skepticism and being informed and attentive."
The Grasso affair may prove to be the most egregious case of not-for-profit directors' failing to exercise their fiduciary duty, but it's hardly the only one. In Austin, Texas, last year, a jury ordered two former officers of the Carl B. and Florence E. King Foundation to repay $7.5 million they'd taken from the charity in salary and lavish perquisites, and tacked on $14 million in punitive damages for good measure. The Texas attorney general had accused the two officers, a secretary, and a pair of the foundation's board members-Arden Grover and Jack Phipps-of violating the Texas Non-Profit Corporation Act by failing to use the foundation's assets for charity and not properly managing its holdings. Both directors resigned in the fall of 2002 and later settled with the state.
An earlier not-for-profit compensation scandal involved Adelphi University on New York's Long Island. In 1997 the state education department's board of regents removed 18 of the 19 Adelphi trustees, contending that they had grossly overpaid the school's president at the time, Peter Diamandopoulos. His annual pay and benefits were reported to exceed $800,000, even though student enrollment was declining. Both Adelphi and Dennis Vacco, then New York's attorney general, subsequently sued the former trustees, arguing that they had wasted university assets. In a 1998 settlement, the former trustees agreed to pay the school $1,025,000. Diamandopoulos has since left.
Michael Peregrine says that too many not-for-profit boards fail to follow best-practice compensation policies, a lapse that leaves their pay practices open to challenge. If they don't shape up, he warns, regulators may force them to. California has already taken a step in that direction with its 2004 Nonprofit Integrity Act, which among other things requires that compensation for the CEO and CFO of a not-for-profit operating in the state be reviewed and approved by the organization's board of directors, an authorized committee of that board, or, in the case of a charitable trust, the trustee or trustees. The law also charges those overseers with ensuring that executive salaries are "just and reasonable."
Peregrine advises directors of not-for-profit entities to adopt the same compensation protocol they should already be using on their public-company boards: create a compensation committee composed of independent directors who operate openly according to a well-defined compensation policy, advised by outside consultants with experience in serving similar organizations.
"The good news is that there's no mystery in this," says Peregrine. "The rules and best practices are awfully clear."
At least they are now.
AcknowledgmentReprinted with Permission
The article first appeared in May/June 2005 issue of Corporate Board Member Magazine.
Be the first to comment on this!
Personal Subscriber? Sign In
Note: Please enter a display name. Your email address will not be publically displayed