Editorial

On the outs
© 2008 Philadelphia Gay News

In recent weeks, two leaders of nonprofit organizations have departed their posts suddenly — one was dismissed after less than a year of service, the other announced her departure from her seven-year post effective the following day.

Both of these organizations, COLOURS Inc. and Equality Advocates Pennsylvania, receive public funding. And in both of these situations, it appears there may have been a conflict between the board and the executive director.

In the case of COLOURS, an HIV/AIDS-education and prevention group focused on people of color, the outgoing executive director, Victor Seltzer, has vocalized his criticism of his abrupt dismissal. In his view, the move was not in the best interest of the organization or the community it serves. However, the organization that oversees COLOURS, the Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Council, has stated they lacked confidence in his ability to provide “effective leadership.”

Seltzer believes he was wrongfully terminated and has called for an investigation.

For its part, GPUAC has declined to elaborate on its personnel policies and its decision.

In the case of Equality Advocates, a statewide LGBT legal aid group, executive director Stacey Sobel announced her resignation on Thursday, Aug. 7, effective the next day.

Sobel’s departure could seriously impact lobbying efforts for the statewide nondiscrimination bill this fall, a bill that she has been instrumental in bringing to the table.

As head of the organization, she has had numerous achievements, from increasing the staff to increasing the budget and donations. She has expanded the organization’s programs and set in motion a new 501(c)(4), Equality Action, to increase lobbying abilities.

And after seven years of service, what would prompt her to leave under such short notice, with work obviously left undone?

For its part, Equality Advocates’ board maintains that her departure was amicable.

Philadelphia’s sexual-minority community — and its nonprofits — has weathered storms before.

On the one hand, boards usually have the discretion to hire and fire the executive director and ensure sound management of the organization. And if the relationship between the board and the director sours, there may not be much that can be done to salvage it.

On the other, the organization, and therefore the board, has a responsibility to the community as stated by its mission. If the director is fulfilling that mission and benefiting the community, why would it benefit the board to interfere?