The ‘ Stern v. Lucy Webb Hayes National Training School for Deaconesses and Missionaries ’ provides a court case whereby the trustees of Lucy Webb School (the defendant) which is a non-profit institution that provided health services to the poor, had failed to invest the liquid assets of the school. The court decided the case by ordering the trustees to present to the board a written policy document regarding investments and also establish a procedure that would facilitate periodic examination of the existing investments (Showalter, 2017). In summary, the court decided to decline awarding damages or even consider denial and recertification. More so, the court declined relief as requested by the hospital patients.
Question 1 : If This Case Were Decided Today, Would The Outcome Be Different? If so, how
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Fast-forwarding the case to today, in my opinion, the decision would still hold, or rather wouldn’t change. With reference to the court decision, there was insufficient evidence which proves that the plaintiff contention of conspiracy, as there existed no evidence that, the trustees did participate in such activities as accused. Nevertheless, the court identified that the trustees had breached the fiduciary duty through mismanagement, self-dealing as well as non-management (Showalter, 2017). This was evidenced by the acceptance of recommendations devoid of objections such as the fact that there were no meetings held for over a decade. More so, there existed no audit report, which in turn put the trustees as guilty in breaching of fiduciary duty.
Question II : As the CEO or Board Member of a Not-For-Profit Hospital Corporation, What Measures I Would Put In Place to Prevent a Repeat of the Activities That Led To the Lawsuit Involved Here
Acting as the chief executive officer of a non-profit hospital corporation, I would adopt different measures in order to ensure such as scenario as presented in the ‘ Stern V. Lucy Webb Hayes Case ’ doesn’t repeat itself. First is to establish a recognized formal structure that would facilitate the reporting of important matters between the board members and the trustees. Additionally, I would establish frequent meetings between the two parties to ensure time to time updates on the progress and management proceedings. The meetings and structured management team would increase transparency and avoid conspiracy (Powell & Steinberg, 2006). On the other hand, I would facilitate training and educating of both board members and trustees of their roles and ensure they understand they stand liable in case of negligence. Finally, as the CEO, I would ensure constant supervision and implementation of varying levels of powers and checks to facilitate continuity and transparency in management.
Question III : How I Would Summarize the Duties of Board Members on the Basis This Case
In summary, the board members duties in a not-for-profit organization with reference to the provided case study entail; the exercise of general supervision over delegated duties. They should also participate in the selection of qualified junior staff; they must also be in attendance of meetings constituting the organization policies and procedures (Powell & Steinberg, 2006). With reference to the presented case, the members should protect the hospital properties as well as overseeing the hospitals strategic goals. Finally, they should participate in the evaluation of the quality offered to the patients, and perform with care and diligence in regard to their duties.
References
Powell, W. W., & Steinberg, R. (2006). The Nonprofit Sector : A Research Handbook (Vol. 2nd Ed). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Showalter, J. S. (2017). The law of healthcare administration (6 th Ed.). Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press.
