give/getWhat does “give/get” mean?

Leadership training for prospective board membersHere in Seattle there is an LGBTQ leadership training programs called Out in Front

Out in Front Seattle is a leadership development effort seeking to secure the future of the movement for LGBTQ equality at all levels of government and society. Over eight months, through six full-day sessions, two weekend-long retreats, plus professional networking opportunities, & intergenerational collaboration, Out in Front Seattle participants gain new understanding and reinforce their own skills toward becoming inclusive, relevant, inspiring and accountable leaders.

I would recommend to anyone without prior experience but who is interested in getting on a board to look for such programs in your state so that you can be as prepared as possible to help lead your organization.

I thinkthat relates to board members usually being expected to contribute/fundraise a minimum amount of money per year for the org.

Georgia EqualityThey missed Jamie Roberts on the board of Georgia Equality.  I sent them a message about that.

I don’t think this list counts state groups.Only national groups. But, if we mention state groups, Equality Maryland Foundation Board of Directors has at least one trans person.

they reported on a handfulgo to their page for a look.

and of the trans people on those national boards,most are women.  where are the transmen?

UpdateI’ve been updating all day, and I welcome data from more state organizations. MAP only gave us three.
I need, for each org, the # total board members, # trans, and the names of the trans persons. I can’t figure a % without a denominator.
Latest numbers show 22/37 nationals without a board member (earlier data was from 2009), yielding 3%, and for the state orgs, 7% trans, with only Mass Equality at zero.

ERW’s BoardIf you want info for other state orgs, Marsha Botzer is on ERW’s board.  She’s 1 of 12, or 8%.

Suggestions 4 & 5 are very bad ideas and should be droppedIf there are minimum requirements for board members, they should not be waived for any board member — particularly related to care and fiduciary responsibility of the organization.
I’m a little surprised that folks don’t realize waiving minimum expectations would increase the perception of tokenism.

Just the data I need. Thank you!And you’re lucky to have her.

talent poolI used to be a board member of a statewide group and we dealt with this very issue.  We ran into several problems with trans representation. First, recruitment onto boards often occurs within relatively limited social circles. This is a problem not only for LGBT groups but other nonprofits as well. Because the LGBT communities are by definition different communities, there was often a lack of trans people in the social circles of those on the board. This made recruitment difficult and it also  manifested itself in the areas of class and race.  I agree that the give get policy can be problematic for trans persons.  However, once you relax requirements, the trans person becomes an unequal board member.  While the person may bring descriptive representation, the individual is not doing the work that keeps the doors open. This marginalizes the board member. I personally felt that when the policies were relaxed for me. Another hurdle that we ran into is that many of the “successful” trans persons had to deal with advocacy that inherently runs the risk of outing them.  This is a problem for many of the not out members of the community and for some of those who have fully transitioned. “Leaving behind” the community has often been an issue with the latter. Finally, the small size of the trans community relative to the lesbian and gay communities combined with the discrimination and family related struggles sometimes found in the trans community left us with what could be termed a very short bench. There were only a handful of trans candidates who were not saddled with large problems (employment, family, medical…) and who brought forth politically relevant skills or resources.  

good pointI totally agree with you HunterC.

yes, very much so

Thisis a very helpful observation. thank you

I went to a workshop for non-profit LGBT organizations board members…When they got to fund raising, they wanted us to write a list of those who could give a $1000 to our non-profit, I didn’t know of any, then he wanted us to write a list of those who could give a $500 to our non-profit, I didn’t know of any, He then wanted us to write a list of those who could give a $100 to our non-profit, I didn’t know of any. When the instructor looked at my list he said surely I must know someone and I said everyone I knew was either unemployed, working a minimum wage job or forced into retirement.

Ah, I see now.Thanks.

Yes, but……can you make a generalized statement like that when several organizations – many with trans board members – are left out? This list is a little selective of who they chose to highlight.
National Stonewall Democrats, for example, is left off the list but they have two trans board members for their (c)4 – one of whom is a board chair. And how does the list account for the many different types of tax status boards these groups form? Several have a 501(c)3, a c(4), and a PAC. If you count all three boards, the trans representation goes up further for Stonewall, for example.
Other “orgs” listed – like In The Life (a TV show) – are considered organizations when they’re not (instead of, well, a TV show). Or the Palm Center – a think tank that’s part of a university – is listed as an org with 3 board members instead of 3 staffers.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a very worthy idea and could be incredibly valuable. But, sadly, the methodology is sadly lacking.

Hence recommendations 3 & 4 above, I presume.It is the same problem for many LGB people.  This is why there will always be a class divide in organizations unless the organization can afford to underwrite low-income but otherwise capable LGBT people.

Bil, I look up NSD online and I seeonly 4 board members, none of whom is trans. Am I missing something?

I’d suggest…you contact NSD. I’m not sure of what’s on their website; I know they just put up a new site. Melissa Sklarz is the board co-chair. Babs Sipperstein has a seat on one of their arms too.

Which is why some of the diversity “paint by numbers” exercises are so maddening…Some of the questions should be addressed but can’t be simply by looking at a numerical snapshot are:
Given a particular organization’s mission, what is the ‘right’ level of participation (for any constituency) within its leadership / organization overall?
Does the lack of (in this case trans) participation in leadership reflect systemic bias?  Or are there other underlying causes, such as size of the talent pool, institutional focus, historical mistrust, etc.?
Lack of top-level leadership aside, are there barriers to inclusion at other levels?  Trans-ceilings?
Demographic numbers can and should guide inclusion efforts, but they can also (and too often) drive towards the number being the goal rather than productive participation in pursuit of organizational goals.
/end soapbox

The choice is “fear of tokenism” (i.e., silence) or a voiceBefore leaving the board of a state level organization, I tried to recruit trans people to the board. Almost all back away becasue of the give/get. Without making some allowance for the part of our community that is poverty stricken, we silence the people who are most at need of our advocacy. So what is better, silence or a seat at the table?  

Yes, yes, everyone who’s not trans and on a board is a rich genius…I’d like to see more focus on those organizations like The Trevor Project which has no trans members on its board even though there are a large number of trans psychotherapists and trans people who work with youth. Are you trying to suggest everyone else on their board is perfectly suited towards working with this issue or rolling in rich friends? Don’t believe it.
How about GLAAD… there are trans people who work in the media and write about media, where’s that representation? These specific organizations need to be called out of their lack of representation, both at the board level and the staffing level. Since it’s been documented that the trans community has more college graduates than the population at large and that many people who’ve transitioned are highly skilled at the management and technical level, there is zero excuse this situation.
I’m sick and tired of hearing the trope about how small the trans community is. If you say the trans umbrella includes people who crossdress, do drag or are gender variant, then you’re talking about a much larger community. The fact is, you have no idea how big the trans community actually is, so let’s not make generalizations about it.

This is a false choice. Be more creative.If a board has a give/get, then all members need to meet it.
The mechanisms used to meet a give/get requirement could be varied.  It’s called a “give/get” — not just a “give” — for a reason.
The funding plan for an organization should include all board members.  How else will they be proper stewards of the budget they vote on and are legally responsible for?
Being a part of the funding plan could be writing grant proposals, calling on prospect lists with a staff member, or otherwise getting credit for the “get” part of the give/get.
It’s not about a board member having immediate access to the give/get amount themselves; it’s about all board members having a concrete and sustained investment in the organization’s success.  And yes, that includes the budget and fiduciary responsibility.
Beyond just a give/get or the money question, the original post was about waiving minimum requirements for some board members.  
It doesn’t matter if the requirement is money or lobbying visits or meeting attendance or whatever…
Waiving minimum requirements IF AN ORGANIZATION CHOOSES TO HAVE THEM is a bad idea.

Very true, and I appreciateyour insights, as I do those of the others.
We identified a problem — an LGBT community that spent only $3M on trans issues in a year a total of $169M was spent.
We noticed (not that it was a secret, as the anemic level of spending wasn’t a secret either) that there were few trans board members (and staffers) at the major non-profits. Since MAP did a study and had a good deal of data from 2009, we decided to start from there and collect more data.
This has stimulated a healthy discussion, and I hope we can collect more data to provide a more accurate picture.
We all know these things, but data goes a long way (note the recent National Transgender Discrimination Survey which was discussed on NPR today, or all the great work from the Williams Institute and Palm Center) to get people to pay attention. We want the donors to pay attention, and the organizations they fund as well.

Most orgs have…Most orgs have a requirement that board members either give to or raise for the organization a certain amount of funding each year, occasionally broken down into quarters, in order to ensure a level of dedication and prevent the risk of static, “name only” representation on the board.
For example, the last time I checked, a board seat on the HRC meant raising 50K for them.
The org I’m the current Executive Director of has a $30.00 per quarter give/get since it is composed primarily of trans people, and focuses on minority populations which have an underreported level of unemployment.

Trans involvement on BOD’sThe truth be known, I have personally experienced a few things about Trans people serving on the BOD’s of major organizations that have convinced me that give/get is not the big blockage that it is played up as.  After offering to pay for a place on the BOD of a state Equality organization, my share or more, I was continually refused for over ten years to be offered a place.
The first priority is….does the Trans person pass in public?  OH please, lets not think that this is not important to GLB leaders who need to lobby, appear as spokespersons at open meetings, or who might be asked to give testimony to a political committee or appear before a
TV camera.  
The second thing that is considered about having a
Trans leader on any BOD, is how do they play?  Is that person to much of an activist?  Are they only interested in
Trans equality or have they only worked for Trans equality in the public.  When they did work for equality, did they play the proper game as a leader, or were they to out about their complaints and objections about not being represented?  Will they toe the line and be satisfied with things like “incrementalism”?  Are they likely to complain if the organization decides to sponsor or back ledgislation that is not inclusive?  Will they bite the bullet and keep quiet about exclusionary programs within the organization?
So…you can pay your way and meet their stipend to raise funds, but if you don’t meet certain other criteria… so sorry, your not their type.

Too bad the MAP data isn’t public.I know I’d love to see what we know about our community non-profits.

playing niceI agree with this.  I also point out that having folks with a demonstrated ability to have constructive relationships, even in the face of disagreement, is desired in many venues. This is certainly going to be true in the interest group system. In fact, the majority of the interest group system is premised on building relationships.  

Do they passSo, are organizations okay with setting other visual criteria…
Is the black candidate for the board too dark, is their nose too negroid or their hair too nappy to be taken seriously?
Is the person too fat? If they appeared on media would viewers at home think they’re a slob who can’t control their eating urges?
Are they too short to be taken seriously as an adult?
Are they too uncomfortably disabled for able bodied people to look at?
Are they too old or unattractive?
If we’re supposed to be okay with ‘passibility’ being a criteria, then we better be okay with those other possible criteria. (and I’m not saying that type of exclusion doesn’t occur, just that there’s no reason we’re supposed to be accepting of it)
As to how they play, guess what, there are LOTS of boards where the members have widely varying agendas and interests… much less /activism & energy levels. If someone trans on a board is okay with incrementalism or non-inclusive legislation, then who cares if that person is a board member. It’s like gay people supposedly being proud if a log cabin member is on a board pretty much putting forward a republican agenda, or black people being proud of some right wing black nitwit like Ward Connerly being a University of California regent. Nobody’s bragging about back-stabbing inclusion like that, so who cares?

college grads?I’ve always thought those study results were the result of a seriously skewed sample.