It has come to my attention that many people (including my past self) think that it's bad for funders to sit on the boards of orgs they fund. Eg someone at OpenPhil being the lead decision maker on a grant and then sitting on the board of that org.

Let's debate this

Since I said this, several separate people I always update to, including a non-EA said this is trivially wrong. It is typical practice with good reason:

  • EA is not doing something weird and galaxy-brained here. Particularly in America this is normal practice
  • Having a board seat ensures that your funding is going where you want and might allow you to fund with other fewer strings attached
  • It allows funder oversight. They can ask the relevant questions at the time rather than in some funding meeting
  • Perhaps you might think that it causes funders to become too involved, but I dunno. And this is clearly a different argument than the standard "EA is doing something weird and slightly nepotistic"
  • To use the obvious examples, it is therefore good that Claire Zabel sits on whatever boards she sits on of orgs OP funds. And reasonable that OpenPhil considered funding OpenAI as a way to get a board seat (you can disagree with the actual cost benefit but there was nothing bad normsy about doing it)

 Do you buy my arguments? Please read the comments to this article also, then vote in this anonymouse poll.

This poll is hidden

Please log in to vote in this poll.

And now you can bet and then make your argument to try and shift future respondents and earn mana for doing so.

This market resolves in a month to the final agree % + weakly agree % of the above poll. Hopefully we can see it move in real time if someone makes a convincing argument.

I think this is a really cool real time debate format and we should have it at EAG. Relevant doc

37

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments15


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

While I voted weakly agree, I would add some caveats:

  • Anyone who is considering a dual-hatted situation like this needs to clearly understand that they are assuming two different roles and that their obligations in each role will differ. When acting as a nonprofit board member, for instance, the individual owes a duty of loyalty to the nonprofit. They need to be particularly alert to situations in which recusal or even resignation may be required.
  • In each case, the potential conflicts of interest need to be analyzed. If a conflict exists but is waivable, then it needs to first be waived by someone who can legitimately do so. For instance, in the Claire example, I think there is a conflict between Claire being involved in proposing a grant and in making a recommendation on whether to fund that grant. I also think that conflict is waivable by the ultimate donor. In contrast, if the funds were coming out of a publicly-supported charity, I would likely find the conflict non-waivable because there is no practical way to get ultimate-donor consent.
  • It's undesirable to have too large a proportion of funder-linked seats in a public charity. Many larger non-EA nonprofits have rather large boards, which allows them to absorb several seats for major donors (or big fundraisers) without creating too many downsides. For example, having one funder-linked seat out of five seats total would bring this closer to neutral for me. If the board were smaller than that, it would probably move me into negative territory.

the individual owes a duty of loyalty to the nonprofit

I don't think this is true. This is not what their board seat is for.

a conflict between Claire being involved in proposing a grant and in making a recommendation on whether to fund that grant

I don't really think this either. I think suggesting that the org is worth supporting is her job. She doesn't have a conflict of interest here, this is the job of a grantmaker, right?

The duties of a non-profit board member / trustee, including a duty of loyalty to the non-profit, are established by law. I'm not aware of any authority to create board seats whose occupants lack the most fundamental duty of a member / trustee. For example, the Charity Commission (UK) explains that a trustee must "do what you and your co-trustees (and no one else) decide will best enable the charity to carry out its purposes," and that this duty is not about serving "the personal interests of supporters, funders or donors."[1]

Thus, in their role as a trustee, the dual-hatted individual must act in the "charity’s best interests." But in their role as a grantmaker, they owe a duty to their donor(s) to provide the best possible advice. I'd characterize a grantmaker's job as neutrally evaluating all the grant proposals on their desk and recommending a funding allocation. This advice will not necessarily further the best interests of the charity on whose board the grantmaker sits. 

So you have one person performing two different roles (an advocacy-like role and a comparative-evaluation role) on the same grant, each involving a duty of loyalty to a different entity (the organization on whose board the person sits, the donor who the person is advising). That's a conflict to me, albeit often a waivable one by the donor.

 

  1. ^

    Even on a for-profit board, board members have a fiduciary duty to all shareholders as a whole. A board member who is also a major investor is not exempt from that duty.

I agree with everything you said here, and would also add an analogy: in the for-profit world it is very common, and actively encouraged, for major investors to have board seats, because it ensures the investor has some level of control and visibility over how their money is used — which seems very reasonable to me.

Now I think this, because of course I think this, but we could run a monthly poll of community frustrations, isolate the disagreements and run debate posts like this.

I think this would be much healthier than the current paradigm. Each post discusses one narrow issue, hopefully we can update somewhere by the end of it. Experts have actual reason to get engaged.

I haven't thought hard about this yet, so this is just a quick take: I'm broadly enthused but don't feel convinced that experts have actual reason to get engaged. Can you flesh that out more?

Just a note that the Likert scale in the poll is not symmetrical ("Agree" vs. "Strongly Disagree")

Again quick take: would be interested in more discussion on (conditional on there being any board members) takes on what a good ratio of funders to non funders is in different situations.

I think the question you're asking is ambiguous in a way that matters. Your example—"someone at OpenPhil being the lead decision maker on a grant and then sitting on the board of that org"—is not typically what the arrangement of being a funder/board member looks like. While funder/board members drive the direction of an organization and help determine its general funding priorities, being the point person on decisions about specific grants is quite different from this. In the latter case, a funder/board member would also, effectively, be serving as an employee of the organization, because these organizations have full-time grantmakers. That would (likely) make them intimately involved in the day-to-day workings of the organization, and could more easily introduce serious COIs. The arrangement of funder/board member seems fine; the arrangement of funder/board member/grantmaker doesn't.

I'm confused by some of the references to "organization," which could refer to the organization receiving a grant (e.g., EVF) or the grant-recommending organization (e.g., Open Phil). Could you clarify which you mean?

 Claire Zabel sits on the board of EVF, and also signs off their grants. Right.

Which of your examples is this more like?

I struggle to really understand the difference, though I guess you're right that there is one.

One way in which the Claire example could differ from other examples is that she owes both a duty of loyalty to EVF and a duty of loyalty to the donors to whom she is making the grant recommendation. If the donor themself is on the board, there is only one duty of loyalty floating about (it doesn't make sense to say the donor-trustee has a duty of loyalty to themself as a donor).

Private equity employees often sit on the boards of portfolio companies, even though technically it's not their money - it belongs to the investors in the fund. These PE employees then owe duties to both the other investors in the portfolio company and to the investors in the fund.

Good analogy. This arrangement has been implicitly consented to by the fund investors, so I think it is generally quite fine. I'm more willing to find an implied COI waiver in this context than in most charity contexts for two reasons:

  • First, private equity fund investors are generally quite sophisticated, and they both understand and desire that someone from the fund sit on the portfolio-company board. I assume that is also true in the Claire example, but there are many charity-related examples where that is not the case.
  • Second, the aims of the various entities tend to be more necessarily aligned in the for-profit example: everyone wants to make money. Although they might disagree on the best path to get there, money is universally quantifiable in a way that charitable impact is not.

Great post, I'm glad this is up for debate. 

I'm mostly worried about situations where the majority of the board is made up of different representatives of a single funder / donor. For the example of Claire - I think it's fine that she represents OP interests to CEA. I'm more worried when the other board members and executives are also very strongly OP affiliated - then it seems like the nonprofits ability to carry out it's mission is harmed. If a nonprofit has an appearance of independence but in practice is managed / owned by a different organization, that seems problematic. Of course, in the case of CEA, I have no idea what went into the decision making process and what the counterfactual looks like (for example - where there other people who wanted that role?), and it's quite possible there are good reasons for this especially post FTX, so I'm less critiquing the results and more of a process that looks like philanthropy -> nonprofit, but in practice is parent company -> subsidiary.

Curated and popular this week
TL;DR * Screwworm Free Future is a new group seeking support to advance work on eradicating the New World Screwworm in South America. * The New World Screwworm (C. hominivorax - literally "man-eater") causes extreme suffering to hundreds of millions of wild and domestic animals every year. * To date we’ve held private meetings with government officials, experts from the private sector, academics, and animal advocates. We believe that work on the NWS is valuable and we want to continue our research and begin lobbying. * Our analysis suggests we could prevent about 100 animals from experiencing an excruciating death per dollar donated, though this estimate has extreme uncertainty. * The screwworm “wall” in Panama has recently been breached, creating both an urgent need and an opportunity to address this problem. * We are seeking $15,000 to fund a part-time lead and could absorb up to $100,000 to build a full-time team, which would include a team lead and another full-time equivalent (FTE) role * We're also excited to speak to people who have a background in veterinary science/medicine, entomology, gene drives, as well as policy experts in Latin America. - please reach out if you know someone who fits this description!   Cochliomyia hominivorax delenda est Screwworm Free Future is a new group of volunteers who connected through Hive investigating the political and scientific barriers stopping South American governments from eradicating the New World Screwworm. In our shallow investigation, we have identified key bottlenecks, but we now need funding and people to take this investigation further, and begin lobbying. In this post, we will cover the following: * The current status of screwworms * Things that we have learnt in our research * What we want to do next * How you can help by funding or supporting or project   What’s the deal with the New World Screwworm? The New World Screwworm[1] is the leading cause of myiasis in Latin America. Myiasis “
L Rudolf L
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
Edited to add: The main takeaway of this post is meant to be: Labour-replacing AI will shift the relative importance of human v non-human factors of production, which reduces the incentives for society to care about humans while making existing powers more effective and entrenched. Many people are reading this post in a way where either (a) "capital" means just "money" (rather than also including physical capital like factories and data centres), or (b) the main concern is human-human inequality (rather than broader societal concerns about humanity's collective position, the potential for social change, and human agency). I've heard many people say something like "money won't matter post-AGI". This has always struck me as odd, and as most likely completely incorrect. First: labour means human mental and physical effort that produces something of value. Capital goods are things like factories, data centres, and software—things humans have built that are used in the production of goods and services. I'll use "capital" to refer to both the stock of capital goods and to the money that can pay for them. I'll say "money" when I want to exclude capital goods. The key economic effect of AI is that it makes capital a more and more general substitute for labour. There's less need to pay humans for their time to perform work, because you can replace that with capital (e.g. data centres running software replaces a human doing mental labour). I will walk through consequences of this, and end up concluding that labour-replacing AI means: 1. The ability to buy results in the real world will dramatically go up 2. Human ability to wield power in the real world will dramatically go down (at least without money); including because: 1. there will be no more incentive for states, companies, or other institutions to care about humans 2. it will be harder for humans to achieve outlier outcomes relative to their starting resources 3. Radical equalising measures are unlikely
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
As 2024 draws to a close, I’m reflecting on the work and stories that inspired me this year: those from the effective altruism community, those I found out about through EA-related channels, and those otherwise related to EA. I’ve appreciated the celebration of wins and successes over the past few years from @Shakeel Hashim's posts in 2022 and 2023. As @Lizka and @MaxDalton put very well in a post in 2022: > We often have high standards in effective altruism. This seems absolutely right: our work matters, so we must constantly strive to do better. > > But we think that it's really important that the effective altruism community celebrate successes: > > * If we focus too much on failures, we incentivize others/ourselves to minimize the risk of failure, and we will probably be too risk averse. > * We're humans: we're more motivated if we celebrate things that have gone well. Rather than attempting to write a comprehensive review of this year's successes and wins related to EA, I want to share what has personally moved me this year—progress that gave me hope, individual stories and acts of altruism, and work that I found thought-provoking or valuable. I’ve structured the sections below as prompts to invite your own reflection on the year, as I’d love to hear your responses in the comments. We all have different relationships with EA ideas and the community surrounding them, and I find it valuable that we can bring different perspectives and responses to questions like these. What progress in the world did you find exciting? * The launch of the Lead Exposure Elimination Fund this year was exciting to see, and the launch of the Partnership for a Lead-Free Future. The fund jointly committed over $100 million to combat lead exposure, compared to the $15 million in private funding that went toward lead exposure reduction in 2023. It’s encouraging to see lead poisoning receiving attention and funding after being relatively neglected. * The Open Wing Alliance repor