Nicole Reese Case Study Analysis

8/14/2019 Nicole Reese Case Study Analysis

1/5

The case study The Disruptive Board Member of the Harristown Vet Centerdiscusses the

dilemma of the Iraq-Afghanistan Veterans Center of Harristown(The Vet Center) over the board

member, Oliver Hanson. Throughout the case study, we learn of Hansons tendency toward

poorly timed, off-colored humor as well as his pattern of verbal abuse towards the organizations

volunteers and staff members. In addition to these shortcomings, we are also made privy to

Hansons history as a combat veteran who has struggled with depression, alcoholism, and drug

abuse, since returning to the United States after the Persian Gulf War. It is also made clear to the

reader that Oliver Hanson is one of the key elements to The Vet Centers relationship with The

Hanson Family Foundation. The ultimate question that rises out of this case study is how the

Board Chair, Harold Mathers, should handle Hansons increasingly disruptive behavior. In this

case, I feel that not only that it is in the organizations best interest to ask Hanson to step down

from the board, but also that they have an ethical obligation to strongly encourage Hanson to

seek professional help.

In this case study, there appear to be three primary issues that Mathers is struggling with.

The first situation is the most obvious: Hansons disruptive behavior during board meetings and

during his bimonthly visits to the center. According to Inglis, Alexander, and Weaver (1999), in

addition to financial planning and budget allocations, board members roles associate with

fiduciary responsibility and how an organization defines and conducts itself. While at board

meetings, and when visiting the Vet Center, Hansons behavior is an exceptionally poor

representation of the ethics, morals and values that the organization is supposed to uphold.

Furthermore, it is highly probable that many of the patrons of the Vet Center suffer from Post

Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD; Hansons fits of rage and verbal abuse, in addition to making


2/5

people uncomfortable, could lead to a very dangerous situation in the recreation area of the Vet

Center, if a veteran lashes out to Hansons stressors.

Aside from being a renegade board member (Carver, 1991), Hanson also plays a key role

in the Vet Centers relationship with their primary funder, The Hanson Family Foundation (the

Foundation). The case study states that keeping Oliver Hanson as a board member is necessary to

maintain the good will of the Foundation. The Foundation provided the primary funding source

to start the Vet Center, its grants still account for 10% of the annual budget, and the board is

planning on approaching the Foundation again for a one-time grant of $500,000 so that it can

move into a better location for serving the mission. The Vet Center has approached the

Foundation previously for the half a million dollar grant, and even though they were denied it,

Oliver Hanson did prove to be a strong advocate for the Vet Center in this matter, and could

serve as one again in the future.

Another apparent issue that Mathers is trying to cope with in his relationship to Hanson is

their shared history of being combat veterans. Mathers served in a different war than Hanson did,

but it is because of this shared experience that Mathers appears to feel empathy for the personal

demons that Hanson is struggling with. In addition to feeling empathy, Mathers also expresses

concern over possible PTSD or Gulf War Syndrome, that might be undiagnosed in Hanson.

Because Mathers understand the atrocities that Hanson must have seen while serving, he feels a

need to help Hanson in his recovery, but appears to be unsure of how to do so.

When dealing with Hanson, there are benefits and draw backs to both dismissing him

from the board and in allowing him to stay on the board. By forcing him to resign his position,

the remaining board members would have few distractions during meetings, which could lead to


3/5

increased productivity. In addition, there would be less stress on the staff of the Vet Center in not

having to deal with Hansons bimonthly visits. But if the boards does ask Hanson to leave, they

are likely to damage, if not destroy, their relationship with one of their primary funders. In

allowing Hanson to stay, they are maintaining the organizations relationship with the

Foundation, and seemingly setting a positive example in their community by showing empathy

and compassion for a veteran. The primary drawback in allowing Hanson to stay is the

requirement to enduring his disruptive and abusive behavior.

If placed in Mathers position, my handling of the Oliver Hanson situation would consist

of two actions. First, I would dismiss him from the board under the pretense of conflict of

interest and accountability; and second, I would reach out to him as a fellow soldier, and

encourage him to seek professional help in coping with his anger issues and substance-abuse

problems.

As Grobman (2011) has discussed, 501(c)3 organizations hold a special place in the

community, and this puts on them an obligation to be accountable to the public in justifying their

tax exempt status. It was a conflict of interest to allow Oliver Hanson to sit on the organizations

board when The Hanson Family Foundation gave the money to start the Vet Center and continue

to be major contributors. With this arrangement, it could be argued that the Vet Center was not

putting its mission first, but was instead serving the will of the Foundation. Furthermore, to be

successful, it is imperative for an organization to remain ethical, accountable, and transparent to

remain viable (Brinckerhoff, 2009). Allowing Hanson to serve on the board is harming the Vet

Centers credibility in all three of these areas.


4/5

There are also a few positive externalities that come out of dismissing Hanson due to a

conflict of interest. By framing his termination in this manor, the situation regarding his behavior

is automatically defused. Instead of starting the conversation with, Oliver, you are disruptive,

aggressive, and impossible to work with, it can instead be phrased, Oliver, it has come to our

attention that allowing you to be on the board has been a conflict of interest, due to the Vet

Centers relationship with your familys Foundation. We tried to find a way to make this

arrangement work, but unfortunately, for the integrity of the organization, we cannot allow it to

continue. Thank you for all of your input to the board. You will never be forgotten for all that

you brought to the table. In addition to being a non confrontational way of dismissing Hanson,

it is also honest. It is the professional equivalent of the Its not you; its me breakup scenario.

The second added benefit to discharging Hanson under these circumstances is it allows the

relationship between Hanson and Mathers to remain as positive as possible, thus allowing the

conversation of getting Hanson help to eventually take place.

In nonprofit organizations, the mission is the most important part of the business

(Grobman, 2011, Brinckerhoff, 2009). By serving as the Board Chair of an organization that

was established to help combat veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, Harold Mathers has a moral

obligation to encourage Hanson to seek professional help. If it is the duty of the board to lead

their organization by example (Brinkerhoff, 2009), then Mathers must put the mission above his

own personal comfort and forge a relationship with Hanson that will help him through his

problems. From his anger management problems and his substance-abuse issues, it is clear that

Hanson came home from the Persian Gulf War a troubled man. At the center, the organization

places no pressure on the veterans to seek help if they do not want to. Mathers should employ

this tactic while working to help Hanson, allowing the relationship to develop organically, and


5/5

when the time is right, he can start the conversation of getting some professional counseling for

Hanson.

It is apparent that the Vet Centers affiliations with Oliver Hanson and the Hanson

Family Foundation are quite complex. Olivers continuous disruptive behavior is not only

placing strain on the board and the staff, but it is also put the boards Chair in a near impossible

position. Harold Mathers has to balance human relationship and benefactor/beneficiary

dynamics, and serve the Veterans of Harristown all at the same time. By dismissing Oliver

Hanson in a non-confrontational manor, The Vet Centers relationship with The Hanson Family

Foundation will suffer the least amount of collateral damage possible, the board of the Vet

Center will be able to be more productive, and Mathers will position himself to befriend Hanson,

and help make a substantial difference in Hansonslife.

References

Brinckerhoff, P. (2009)Mission-Based Management:Leading Your Not-for-Profit in the 21st

Century(2ndEdition) Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley &Sons, Inc.

Grobman, G. (2011)An Introduction to the Nonprofit Sector: A Practical Approach for the 21st

Century(3rdedition)Harrisburg, PA: White Hat Communications

Balgobin, E. (2012, March 6) Dont Ignore The Symptoms of a Trustee Board Gone Bad. The

Third Sector17.

Carver, J. (1991) The CEO & the Renegade Board MemberNonprofit World,9(6) 14-17.

Inglis, S., Alexander, T., Weaver, L. (1999) Roles and Responsibilities of Community Nonprofit

BoardsNonprofit Management & Leadership, 9(2), 153-167

Documents

Nicole Reese Case Study Analysis