I’ve sat in enough board meetings and worked closely enough with volunteer leadership to know that most governance problems don’t announce themselves.
They accumulate.
A committee chair who makes a commitment on behalf of the organization without quite having the authority to do so. A board decision that gets worked out in a hallway conversation rather than a formal meeting, and then can’t be documented when it matters six months later. A conflict of interest that everyone sort of knew about but nobody ever formally disclosed because the policy wasn’t clear enough to require it.
If something went sideways tomorrow — a volunteer commitment that created organizational liability, a board decision that couldn’t be documented, a conflict of interest that became visible — how clear is your governance infrastructure about what should have happened?
None of those are hypothetical.
ASAE flagged this recently in a way I thought was interesting: with the right safeguards, associations can harness volunteer power while keeping legal, financial, and reputational vulnerabilities in check. It was interesting to me because the phrase “with the right safeguards” is doing a whole lot of work there.
What it implies is that without them, real exposure exists – sometimes quickly. And in listening over the years, I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say a lot of small associations operate somewhere in that gap — not recklessly or intentionally, but informally, and in ways that work right up until they don’t.
Trust: The Risk That Doesn’t Look Like Risk
Governance risks in volunteer-led work are rarely dramatic. Instead, they’re quiet in that way that when parents realize their kids have been quiet for a long time, it’s usually not good.
That’s exactly what makes them worth taking seriously, because the quiet ones don’t come with warning signals before they become expensive.
Though it always hits the ear as most pressing or deserving of attention first, legal exposure is real but often not the first thing to hit. Instead, what tends to land faster and harder for small associations is reputational exposure — to members, to the professional community, to potential partners.
Where a financial misstep can often be corrected with time and transparency, a trust misstep takes much longer, and small associations run on trust in ways that larger organizations simply don’t have to in quite the same way. This means the margin for error is smaller.
Why It Stays Informal
I don’t think small associations underinvest in governance infrastructure because they don’t care. I think they underinvest because the conditions that produce good governance documentation are almost never present simultaneously: stable volunteer leadership, staff capacity for systematic documentation, and board members with enough governance background to know what they don’t know.
Volunteer leaders rotate frequently, so institutional knowledge about what’s been decided and why lives in outgoing leaders’ heads rather than in documents. Staff — often one or two people — are too close to execution (i.e., too busy doing) to have bandwidth for the kind of ongoing documentation that high-quality governance requires. And boards made up of practitioners who volunteered because they care about the profession often don’t come in with governance expertise as part of their background.
Again, that’s not a failure of commitment as much it’s a structural reality.
Most volunteer board training covers fiduciary duty in the abstract. It doesn’t cover the specific situations where that duty gets complicated — the vendor relationship that creates a conflict, the partnership conversation that went further than the board authorized, the member complaint that became a legal question before anyone realized it was heading that direction.
So, what to do?
What I’ve Seen Work — and What I’m Still Figuring Out
Governance is not my deepest area of expertise, and I want to be clear about that before offering anything authoritatively prescriptive.
But, what I’ve observed is that the associations with the strongest governance cultures tend to share a few things: the staff leader treats documentation as a function, not a burden. New board members get an orientation that covers the real situations they’re likely to encounter — not just the bylaws. And there’s a practice of bringing ambiguous situations to the full board rather than resolving them informally and hoping they don’t resurface.
What I’m still working out is how small associations build that culture when staff capacity is genuinely limited. My best guess — and I hold it loosely — is that fewer volunteer roles with clearer authority produce fewer governance gaps than many roles with loosely defined scope. The documentation burden scales with ambiguity. Reduce the ambiguity and the documentation becomes more manageable.
But governance culture is deeply organization-specific. What works in one association shaped by its history, its volunteer community, and its staff-board relationship may not transfer cleanly to another. I’m more confident in the underlying principle than in any specific fix: the exposure tends to live in the unclear spaces. Make the boundaries of volunteer authority clearer and those spaces shrink.
The Question I Keep Coming Back To
While those other things continue to roll in my thinking, I come back to this:
If something went sideways tomorrow — a volunteer commitment that created organizational liability, a board decision that couldn’t be documented, a conflict of interest that became visible — how clear is your governance infrastructure about what should have happened?
As a lover of scenarios and game-planning, I regularly ask myself a version of that question too, not just about volunteer governance but about every system that runs informally because there hasn’t been a crisis yet to make it urgent. The absence of a crisis is not the same as the presence of a safeguard, and we always should use that no-crisis downtime wisely.
Kitchen's Ink 
Leave a comment