National Board

By John Tateishi
November 18, 2011

Throughout my 35- plus years’ association with the JACL, I’ve served in various capacities at various levels of the organization. I was a founding member of the Marin County chapter, served as its vice president and president and attended three conventions as a delegate; served on the NCWNP district board as a v.p. twice and was the chairman of the district redress committee; was co-founder of the Golden Gate chapter; chaired the National Committee for Redress; served in a staff capacity as the JACL’s Redress director as a lobbyist in DC; and finally, served as the national director from 1999 until my departure at the end of 2006.

I give my bona fides because this is an opinion piece and I want you to understand that I speak from a lot of experience in the JACL at all levels and in different capacities. Having done this doesn’t necessarily make me right in what I’m going to say, but I do have some basis for my concerns.

I’m talking about the national board.

I was asked several times to run for the national board, but I never did. At first because I felt I hadn’t had enough experience in the JACL and hadn’t paid my dues at the chapter and district levels; and then later because I was involved in the JACL redress program as a volunteer chair and then as a staff member.

My reluctance came from feeling that I hadn’t earned the privilege of being a national board member. One ought to prove one’s self at the chapter and district levels before running for the board. Maybe, like some other organizations, we ought to have an election committee to screen candidates to ensure they have the qualifications to run for office.

I know. The counter-argument to this is that if this kind of prerequisite were required, it would discourage many from seeking national office. Fine. As a former employee of the JACL, I think that’s better instead of having board members who don’t really know the organization or what their purpose is on the board.

One thing ought to be absolutely clear: national board members are responsible for fiduciary and policy matters of the organization. And nothing more.

I say this so emphatically because my experience as a former national chair, as an employee hired to lobby redress, and as the national director, has been board members who meddle, who think their job is to run the organization, who dictate what the staff can or cannot do. If that’s what board members want to do or think they should do, they need to learn what it means to be a board member, and if they still want to, they need to apply for the job.

That’s universal, whether corporate, public or nonprofit boards. Board members need to read the book on serving on boards. In California, nonprofit boards can get involved in personnel matters, but only as a board-as-a-whole and in executive session.

When I was the Redress director, a staff position where I lobbied Congress, some board members tried to tell me how I should do my job when they knew little about the issue and nothing about Washington. And there are always those who try to run the organization by micro-managing, always counter-productive because all it does is frustrate the staff.