Dear Sir,
This letter serves as my application for the position of executive director of the Lake Chapala Society (LCS). I am sharing it with readers of the Guadalajara Reporter.
I believe that familiarity with LCS requires little explanation. The more relevant question is why I would wish to return to the position after previously serving as executive director. The answer is simple: LCS is experiencing a profound crisis of confidence that threatens its institutional stability and I believe I possess the experience, institutional knowledge, and leadership necessary to help stabilize and restore the community’s confidence in LCS.
During my previous tenure, I was hired at another turbulent moment in the organization’s history. At that time, LCS faced serious internal division, governance concerns, and declining confidence from portions of the membership. Through disciplined management, clear operational boundaries, and renewed focus on mission and membership, the organization regained stability and credibility and then flourished.
Today, many of those same concerns have resurfaced. The organization does not suffer from a lack of passion. It suffers from a lack of disciplined governance. Public criticism, declining confidence, controversy surrounding governance practices, and member dissatisfaction are now widely discussed in local media, social media, and throughout the community. Regardless of how matters reached this point, the essential question is how the organization intends to move forward constructively and restore its luster.
I appreciate that your search announcement welcomes difficult questions; that’s mindful leadership. In that spirit, I provide the following matters that deserve candid discussion.
1. Governance and operational boundaries:
What steps will be taken to restore the appropriate separation between board governance responsibilities and executive operational authority? In other words, why have governance and operations become blurred in direct contradiction to accepted nonprofit management standards?
2. Conflict of interest standards:
What meaningful conflict-of-interest standards currently exist within LCS governance? Do you believe that members have every right to question whether the president of LCS can impartially fulfill fiduciary responsibilities while simultaneously leading another major fundraising nonprofit? What safeguards exist to prevent actual or perceived conflicts of interest when board members maintain close personal relationships with staff whose employment or advancement they previously influenced? Is it not true that even the appearance of compromised objectivity damages institutional credibility and erodes member confidence?
3. Adherence to bylaws and member authority:
Does the board recognize the membership as the ultimate governing authority of the institution? Do you understand that the reinstatement of a board member previously rejected by the membership has understandably raised serious questions regarding respect for member authority?
4. Transparency and accountability:
Why are closed executive sessions reportedly being used for matters that do not appear to involve litigation, personnel issues, or other traditionally protected subjects under accepted nonprofit governance standards? Why does the board appear to regard member scrutiny as problematic rather than recognizing transparency as an essential obligation of nonprofit governance? During my tenure as executive director, executive sessions were rare, narrowly limited, properly documented, and never treated as a substitute for open governance. What has changed?
5. Board conduct and organizational culture:
What standards of conduct are expected from board members, and how are complaints involving inappropriate behavior, treatment of staff, or member relations investigated and addressed? Why are allegations involving staff treatment and board conduct unresolved?
6. Financial stewardship and program integrity:
What financial controls and independent oversight govern the administration of funds connected to the children’s art program? If such concerns are unfounded, why has the organization not addressed them publicly and transparently in order to protect both donor confidence and the integrity of the program itself?
7. Parliamentary procedure and member confidence:
What commitment exists to ensuring future meetings are conducted according to Robert’s Rules of Order and accepted nonprofit governance standards?
8. At what financial institutions does LCS currently have accounts, and which individuals are currently named on the accounts?
I do not raise these issues to inflame controversy, but because organizations regain stability only when concerns are acknowledged directly. LCS cannot deny its way out of a governance crisis. Trust is restored through accountability, transparency, competent leadership, and respect for the membership. Those principles guided my previous tenure as executive director, and I believe they are urgently needed again.
I remain deeply committed to the mission and long-term health of LCS and would welcome the opportunity to discuss how my prior experience and leadership may contribute to restoring organizational stability and prosperity.
T. Vidal