Hi @David Harris -- I've been on a few advisory boards, and also have helped launch / implement advisory boards / community advisory councils. I have some of the same questions as Betsey -- is this to engage community members or program participants / graduates ... or as a junior board / bench for future board members? Happy to give input from my past experience, depending on the purpose.

@David Harris I'm not a fan of advisory boards being created as a response to disengaged board members, unless they are already sharing their valuable contacts to support the org. And if they are already doing that, then I think a candid convo about their participation / contribution (and possibly clearer membership / role responsibilities) is more important to prioritize than forming yet another structure that either the staff or the board will have to manage and maintain. If it's to create a future structure for time-limited, role-limited actions like network expansion, contacts, introductions ... I have seen that done well, but the key is time-limited and SUPER straightforward for what they are being asked to do, when joining. Something I am seeing work well is a quarterly convening where folks (on the list you might want to otherwise invite to an advisory board) are asked to come for a 2 hour session to provide insights, expertise, strategy. You could shift around the topics, inviting folks specifically for the purpose, or ask folks to join for one year, and publish the topics ahead of time and folks come to what feels applicable.

I am a big fan of Kate Harris and her work. I appreciated the article and the sentiment quite a lot. The comment about not needing modern-day conquistadors to aggressively fund mergers and partnerships really resonated, as did the recommendation that the sector needs much more financial literacy and understanding around sustainability when it comes to seeking out potential alignment between orgs.

It can help to broach the topic as an annual goal for the board / organization: to structure terms, design offboarding (that is intentional and thoughtful), and navigate nominations and onboarding. Packaging it as a bigger effort than just dismissing folks who have stayed too long can make it an easier pill to swallow. The board I currently serve as chair has three 2 year terms available, and other boards I've served on have been two terms max, with 2 or 3 years. I think 6 years is a LONG time to give to an org especially when life changes, so I tend to appreciate four years as a middle balance to strike. Another way that I've helped orgs broach the conversation is to have a portion of a future board meeting be dedicated to brainstorming what kinds of board members the org will need for its future - it can help folks (even if they don't admit it out loud) understand that their commitment to the org has been purposeful, and that others might bring new skillsets for the necessary future (insert innovation, growth, stability, expansion, structure, etc.)

We've been experimenting a bit with different modes of input, beyond simply relying on folks speaking up during board meetings. We haven't quite yet perfectly solved for this (as it ends up putting additional work for the board chair / committee chairs), but we are cognizant of an over-reliance on the folks who speak up most often / loudest as the default decision makers.

@Keli Frazier Cox asking folks other than committee chairs to deliver regular reports during meetings, reaching out individually to folks who don't often speak up to ask for specific feedback and input on decisions are two ways.

@Roosevelt Callahan ditto that to succession planning!

@Keli Frazier Cox love the DFS connection! I served as interim ED for the DFS in Tampa Bay during 2024.