The Order in Which You Decide

This week:

• Two Pittsburgh theaters that completed a merger and then went looking for someone to run it.
• Two Seattle food nonprofits that told everyone in writing that nobody was losing a job before anyone asked. And
• Four Cincinnati nonprofits that announced they were considering a merger months before deciding — which is what let one of them leave without it becoming a story about an organization in trouble.
• Three quick hits on the new charitable deduction that reaches donors who do not itemize, the health plan attestation almost nobody files by December 31, and the OSHA filing that covers more nonprofits than their directors think — and whose employee-counting rule almost everyone gets backwards.
• Three AI prompts to map the partnership options short of a merger, run the due diligence on yourself before a partner does, and draft the announcement you would have to make. Plus,
• A 30-minute board exercise on the things you will not trade, and a note from me on the sentence that ends these conversations.

Here is the finding that reframes merger discussions.

The Metropolitan Chicago Nonprofit Merger Research Project studied 25 completed nonprofit mergers across the eight-county Chicago region and conducted more than a hundred interviews with board members and executive staff. In 88 percent of those mergers, participants felt the post-merger organization was better off than either predecessor.

That is the number people quote. The number they skip sits in the same report, in the cases that did not complete.

One pair of civic organizations had overlapping boards, shared funders, and job-security guarantees already on the table. The report is blunt about what ended it: a proposed two-year term limit for the executive chair "proved to be a problem, probably constituting the biggest merger impediment because merger discussions terminated shortly after it was suggested." One of the two organizations ceased to exist in 2014.

A second deal died when due diligence "uncovered significant solvency issues" and the acquiring board backed off — over a balance sheet that had been sitting there the whole time.

A third merger actually closed and then came apart, because the two chief executives "were incompatible, and their inability to work together was a major factor in causing the merger to dissolve."

None of these died over strategy. They died over a title, a discovery that arrived too late, and two people who could not share a hallway.

Which points at something the three organizations in this issue each did differently, and did on purpose.

A combination does not usually fail on what you decide. It fails on when.

Every merger conversation contains three questions that can end it: who leads, who is protected, and who gets to walk away. Most boards let all three sit in the middle of the process, unspoken, until one of them detonates.

The three organizations below had no better economics than the deals that failed. They just had better sequencing.

---

Two Pittsburgh Theaters Completed a Merger, Then Started Looking for Someone to Run It

Pittsburgh CLO has been producing musicals since 1946. Pittsburgh Public Theater was chartered in 1974 and opened its first season in September 1975. On July 31, 2026, they became a single organization. On August 31 — a full month later — they announced what it would be called: Confluence Theater of Pittsburgh.

The financial picture underneath that sequence is worth stating plainly, because neither organization has stated it this way.

Pittsburgh Public Theater's most recent Form 990, for the fiscal year ending August 2024, reports $6,191,197 in revenue against $7,894,442 in expenses. Pittsburgh CLO's, for calendar year 2024, reports $9,774,850 against $11,427,764. CLO's net assets fell from $11,142,818 at its September 2022 fiscal year end to $7,091,139 in December 2024, after a change in fiscal year — down roughly 36 percent in a little over two years.

You see it: both organizations were spending down. In May 2026, Public Theater board chair Krysia Kubiak said that "with the Pittsburgh Public Theater facing ongoing financial constraints and foregoing a traditional fall season as it prepares to become part of an entirely new, unified organization with Pittsburgh CLO, it is unfortunately not possible for the Public to sustain normal staffing levels."

How many people that meant is genuinely contested, and I am not going to smooth it over. Kubiak said 11 team members were affected. OnStage Pittsburgh, reporting the same day under the headline "Pittsburgh Public Staff All Laid Off," quoted a termination letter and noted the theater's own website then listed more than 40 personnel. Take 11 as the organization's number, not as an established one.

So this is a merger under real pressure, and it should not be dressed up as anything else. What makes it worth reading is one structural choice the boards made inside that pressure.

They did not decide who would run the merged organization.

Confluence opened with Dr. Brett Ashley Crawford as interim President and Executive Producer and Kyle Haden as interim Artistic Director, with W. Thomas McGough, Jr. as board chair and a national search underway for permanent leadership. The boards voted to combine in March. The organization exists. The top job is open.

Read that against the Chicago study, where a deal between two well-aligned civic organizations collapsed over a term limit on one executive position. That is the same species of problem: a leadership question forced into the negotiation while two boards are also trying to agree on everything else. Deferring that question does not make it easier. It converts it from a negotiation between two boards into a hiring decision for one.

There is a second thing here that most coverage treated as a footnote, and it is the more useful half.

This began as a three-organization conversation, and it began in public: the three boards announced in September 2025 that they were exploring a combination and held a town-hall meeting about it that November. City Theatre — the smallest of the three, and the one its own board judged most exposed to the complexity of a three-way deal — opted out in January 2026, in a joint statement all three signed. The remaining two kept going and closed six months later.

That is the same pattern you will see twice more in this issue. When a combination is discussed openly enough that leaving is a visible option, somebody leaves — and the conversation survives it.

The naming was the third choice worth copying, and it cost nothing. The organizations put the name to a public call and took in more than three thousand submissions. (They were clearly taking a risk here: I don't know how many of those suggestions were something like "Theater McTheaterface," in case you were wondering. I love people, but I sometimes hate the "public.") "Confluence" kept recurring; it describes both the merger and the three rivers the city sits on. An earlier working choice, "Forge Theater of Pittsburgh," was dropped after another local company announced a similar name. A question that routinely turns into a proxy war between two boards got answered by the audience instead.

Here is what makes this replicable. Before your board opens any partnership conversation, write down which decisions must be made before signing and which can be made after. Most boards have never drawn that line, and default to deciding everything at once. Leadership, name, and headquarters can sit on either side of that line — Pittsburgh put leadership after the closing, Seattle put it first, and both said so up front. What kills deals is leaving those questions unassigned. Mission scope, protected programs, and what happens to restricted funds cannot wait.

Then say the deferral out loud in the first meeting, so nobody spends four months negotiating a question you have agreed to postpone.

One honest limit on the evidence. No savings figure has been published for this combination, and I am not going to invent one. Two newsrooms have covered it. What the record supports is that two organizations with real deficits and shrinking net assets chose to become one, and did it without first resolving who wins.

Sources: 90.5 WESA, July 31, 2026 — "Pittsburgh theater troupes merge, announce new shows but still lack a name"; 90.5 WESA, August 31, 2026 — "Merged groups announce Confluence Theater of Pittsburgh as new name"; OnStage Pittsburgh, May 20, 2026 — "Pittsburgh Public Staff All Laid Off"; OnStage Pittsburgh, August 31, 2026 — "Introducing Confluence Theater of Pittsburgh"; 90.5 WESA, January 28, 2026 — "City Theatre opts out of possible merger with Pittsburgh stage groups"; IRS Form 990, Pittsburgh Public Theater; IRS Form 990, Civic Light Opera Association​

Two Seattle Food Organizations Answered the Layoff Question in Writing Before Anyone Asked It

Pittsburgh moved the hardest question to the end. North Helpline and Hunger Intervention Program moved theirs to the very beginning.

The two north Seattle organizations announced on July 10, 2026 that they intend to combine as North Seattle Food Connection. North Helpline runs two food banks, grocery delivery, homelessness prevention, and client services. Hunger Intervention Program runs prepared meals, meal delivery, nutrition education, and food justice advocacy. Little of it overlaps.

The announcement is short, and two passages in it are doing all the work.

The first answers, under its own heading, whether either organization is failing: "Many times, nonprofit organizations consider combining when it is not financially viable to continue independently. That is not the case for either HIP or North Helpline."

The second: "Because we see this as a joining of complementary organizations, we are not eliminating any staff positions."

Those are precisely the two things every employee and every donor assumes when a merger is announced — that somebody is failing, and that somebody is about to be fired. Both organizations answered both questions in public, in writing, on day one, before the rumor had time to form.

The filings support the first claim, which matters, because an organization can call itself healthy for reasons that have nothing to do with health. Hunger Intervention Program's Form 990 for the fiscal year ending September 2025 reports $1,273,018 in revenue against $1,268,661 in expenses — essentially break-even — with $544,879 in net assets. North Helpline's, for the fiscal year ending June 2025, reports $9,448,132 in revenue against $9,762,896 in expenses, a deficit of about three percent, against $2,645,399 in net assets.

One caution on that larger number before it lands in anyone's board deck. About 99 percent of North Helpline's revenue is contributions, while salaries and officer compensation together run about 10.5 percent of expenses, with benefits and payroll taxes on top of that. Much of that $9.45 million is almost certainly donated food carried at fair value rather than cash — the filing summary does not break out the in-kind line, but a food bank with that expense profile is not running on $9 million of cash. In cash terms this is a considerably smaller organization than the top line suggests. Food bank financials are systematically misread this way, including by funders.

Neither organization is in distress. Both said so, and the filings agree.

The context is not comfortable, though. USDA figures put Washington's SNAP participation at 906,414 in April 2025 and 867,536 in April 2026 — a drop of roughly 39,000 people in a year, with the more recent figure flagged by USDA as preliminary and subject to revision. Demand at the emergency food end rises as the federal end contracts. Combining before that pressure fully arrives is a different act from combining after.

Leadership was settled the other way here, and settled early. Darcy Buendia and Srijan Chakraborty became co-executive directors of both organizations as of July 10, and will lead the combined entity. Both boards combine.

Two honest qualifications on what has actually happened. North Seattle Food Connection is at this point an announced intent, not a completed legal merger — the organizations describe details being finalized "over the next few months." And the no-layoffs statement is a present-tense commitment, not a one-year guarantee; the same announcement says team reorganization "will happen slowly over the next year."

Say the timeline out loud anyway, which they did. It stops staff from reading every small change as the beginning of the end.

Here is what makes this replicable, and it takes an afternoon. Before your board approves opening any partnership conversation, draft the two sentences you would have to publish: whether either organization is in financial distress, and whether any position is being eliminated.

If you can write them honestly, publish them the day you announce.

If you cannot write them honestly — if the truthful version is "yes, we are struggling" or "we do not know yet about jobs" — you have learned something more useful than any consultant will tell you that month, and you have learned it before paying a consultant to find out. The two sentences are a test of whether the board understands its own transaction.

Sources: Hunger Intervention Program, July 10, 2026 — "HIP and NHL Announce Intent to Combine"; KNKX Public Radio, August 15, 2026; IRS Form 990, North Helpline; IRS Form 990, Hunger Intervention Program; USDA Food and Nutrition Service — SNAP state participation data​

Four Cincinnati Nonprofits Announced They Were Considering a Merger. Three Went Ahead; the Fourth Got to Leave.

In late March 2026, four Cincinnati organizations that all exist to support other nonprofits did something rare enough to be the story by itself. They announced publicly that a Merger Steering Committee was assessing whether closer alignment would create greater value — before deciding anything.

The committee's statement was explicit about the uncertainty: "No final decisions have been made, and any commitment would require additional review and approval by each board." The reporting adds that the committee promised to share the details — governance, leadership structure, branding — if the boards chose to move forward.

On August 17, three of them announced they were going ahead. OneSource Center for Nonprofit Excellence and Leadership Council for Nonprofits will dissolve into a new 501(c)(3), and Social Venture Partners Cincinnati joins it. The organization is BEAM Center for Nonprofits, with Beth Benson — executive director of Leadership Council since 2022 — as its first chief executive officer, and Rob Reifsnyder, OneSource's board chair, as inaugural board chair.

Note the tense. The August 17 documents describe dissolution and formation in the future: this is an announced merger whose legal steps are still running, not a closed transaction. That distinction matters if you are copying the timeline.

The fourth organization, Cincinnati Cares, did not continue.

That is the part I want you to sit with, because it is the payoff of the March announcement.

On the reason, I am going to be careful, because the record is thinner than it looks. Movers & Makers reported that Cincinnati Cares "was not able to meet due diligence requirements in time to participate, according to a release from BEAM." That sentence is the reporter's, attributed to a release; BEAM's published press release does not mention Cincinnati Cares at all, and I found no statement from Cincinnati Cares itself. The surrounding facts are also more tangled than a clean story wants: Cincinnati Cares is part of a nonprofit called Inspiring Service, the same executive led both Cincinnati Cares and Social Venture Partners Cincinnati before relocating to New Orleans, and SVP's existing relationship with Inspiring Service ends as part of this merger.

I do not know why Cincinnati Cares is not in BEAM, and (apparently) neither does anyone who has published on it. I am telling you that rather than constructing a tidy explanation, because the explanation is not the lesson.

The lesson is what the March announcement made possible. Because the exploration had been announced as an exploration, one participant leaving was a partner that did not continue. Not a collapse. Not a rejection. Not a leak. The public frame absorbed the exit.

Run the counterfactual. Four organizations negotiate quietly for five months. One drops out. Now somebody's board hears it as a rumor, a program officer asks what happened, and an organization that was merely slow becomes an organization that was turned down.

Pittsburgh ran the same play, as you saw above: City Theatre left an announced exploration and the departure never became the story. That is not luck. It is what happens when leaving is a visible option from the start.

There is a second, sharper lesson buried in the reporting even if its specifics are unproven. Due diligence is not a test you study for. It is an inventory of documents that either exist or do not — three years of 990s, audited financials with management letters, certified bylaws, board minutes showing the approvals they are supposed to show, employment agreements that were actually countersigned, operating licenses, a debt schedule, litigation history, insurance policies.

If you cannot assemble that package in three weeks, you are not ready to be anyone's partner, and you will find that out at the worst possible moment.

Here is what makes this replicable. Two things, and neither requires a partner.

Write the exploration announcement now — the one that names who is at the table, states what is being evaluated, commits to disclosure, and says plainly that any party may decline. Keep it in a drawer. When a conversation starts, you are not drafting under pressure.

Then run the document inventory in the next 30 days. La Piana Consulting publishes a free due diligence checklist (link below) organized into seven categories, from organizational documents through capital and real estate; the Metropolitan Chicago merger study publishes a shorter one built as a board-usable tracker. Work down either list and mark what you actually have. The gaps are your real answer about readiness.

Sources: Movers & Makers, March 31, 2026 — "Four regional nonprofits announce plans to consider future merger"; Movers & Makers, August 17, 2026 — "Three Greater Cincinnati organizations merge"; BEAM Center for Nonprofits; La Piana Consulting — Nonprofit Due Diligence Checklist; Mergers as a Strategy for Success — Metropolitan Chicago Nonprofit Merger Research Project, 2016​

Rewrite Your Year-End Appeal for the Deduction Your Donors Get Without Itemizing

Beginning with tax year 2026, a donor who does not itemize can still deduct cash gifts to charity — up to $1,000 for a single filer and $2,000 for a married couple filing jointly. IRS Publication 505 states it directly: "Beginning in 2026, you can claim a deduction for cash contributions made to eligible tax-exempt organizations. You don't have to itemize to take the deduction."

The last IRS figure I can source puts standard-deduction filers at 87.3 percent of returns for tax year 2018. For the large majority of your donors, the charitable deduction has been irrelevant since 2018. This December it is relevant again.

A second change runs the other way, and your major-gift conversations need it. Donors who do itemize now face a floor: under 26 U.S.C. § 170(b)(1)(I), only contributions above 0.5 percent of the taxpayer's contribution base are deductible. Publication 505 renders that as adjusted gross income, which is close enough for a donor conversation. For a household at $300,000, the first $1,500 of giving no longer counts.

That floor is an argument for bunching. A donor giving $5,000 a year for three years loses $1,500 to the floor three times — $4,500 in all. The same donor giving $15,000 once loses it once. Your major-gift officers should be able to explain that by October.

Action: Four steps, and the first takes ten minutes.

Add one sentence to every year-end appeal, the donation page, and the acknowledgment email: starting with 2026 taxes, donors may be able to deduct up to $1,000 — $2,000 filing jointly — for cash gifts even without itemizing. Say "may," and tell them to confirm with their preparer.

Add $1,000 and $2,000 rungs to your suggested-gift ladder. Those are now anchored numbers in a donor's head rather than arbitrary ones.

Brief your board and major-gift volunteers on the 0.5 percent floor and the bunching case before they make their own gifts.

Get the limits right in your internal talking points. The statute reaches cash contributions to organizations described in § 170(b)(1)(A) — not tax-exempt organizations generally. It excludes gifts to § 509(a)(3) supporting organizations and gifts establishing or maintaining a donor advised fund. Say "cash gifts to charities like ours," not "any nonprofit."

ROI: This is the first above-the-line charitable deduction available since the pandemic-era provision expired, and it reaches the large majority of households that had lost any tax reason to give. One sentence in a December appeal, at essentially zero cost.

Time: 45 minutes to update appeal copy, the donation page, and acknowledgment templates.

Sources: IRS Publication 505 (2026); 26 U.S.C. § 170; IRS SOI Tax Stats at a Glance​

File the Health Plan Attestation Nobody Remembers, Due December 31

If your organization sponsors a group health plan — self-funded or fully insured, at any size — you owe the federal government an annual attestation that your contracts with providers, networks, and third-party administrators contain no "gag clauses" restricting access to cost and quality information.

CMS states the schedule plainly: "The first GCPCA is due no later than December 31, 2023. Subsequent attestations are due by December 31 of each year thereafter."

The requirement comes from section 201 of Division BB, Title II of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, which added parallel provisions at Internal Revenue Code § 9824, ERISA § 724, and Public Health Service Act § 2799A-9. It has been in force for three years and it is a filing that routinely goes unfiled at nonprofits under a hundred employees, because no form arrives in the mail, no vendor invoices you for it, and nothing breaks when you skip it.

The confusion is genuine, not careless. Many fully insured plans are covered by the issuer's submission. Many self-funded plans are covered by nobody, and the third-party administrator will not file unless asked.

Two exclusions worth knowing before you spend the twenty minutes. Plans offering only excepted benefits are outside the requirement, and the Departments have said they will not enforce it against plans consisting solely of health reimbursement arrangements or other account-based plans. If your only health offering is an HRA or an ICHRA, this is probably not your problem — confirm it, then stop.

Action: Email your carrier, TPA, or benefits broker this month with one question in writing: are you submitting the Gag Clause Prohibition Compliance Attestation on our behalf for 2026, or are we responsible for filing it ourselves?

If you file it, register and submit through the CMS portal at hios.cms.gov. It is a short web form, not an actuarial exercise.

Save the confirmation in your plan compliance file with the date, and put December 1 on next year's calendar so this is never a December 30 problem again.

ROI: The email costs nothing and the filing costs nothing. Discovering in an ERISA examination that three years of attestations were never filed costs counsel time and produces a fiduciary problem that lands on your board, not on your broker.

Time: 20 minutes if your TPA files. 45 minutes if you do.

Sources: CMS — Gag Clause Prohibition Compliance Attestation; FAQs About Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 Implementation Part 57​

Count Your Employees the Way OSHA Counts Them, Then Check Whether You Owe a March 2 Filing

Most nonprofit executives assume the OSHA injury and illness rules are a manufacturing problem. Check the industry codes before you assume it, because the list reaches further than the assumption — and check the counting rule, because almost everyone gets it backwards.

Two obligations run on separate clocks. Under 29 CFR 1904.32(b)(6), the annual summary — Form 300A — "must be posted no later than February 1 of the year following the year covered by the records" and kept up until April 30. Under 29 CFR 1904.41, covered establishments "must submit all of the required information by March 2 of the year after the calendar year covered by the form(s)."

Here is the part worth thirty minutes. Appendix A to Subpart E — the list of industries that must electronically submit Form 300A at 20 to 249 employees — includes NAICS 6242, Community Food and Housing, and Emergency and Other Relief Services. It includes NAICS 6243, Vocational Rehabilitation Services. And it includes 6231, 6232, 6233 and 6239, the nursing and residential care codes.

Food banks. Shelters. Disaster relief organizations. Sheltered workshops and supported employment programs. Group homes. Appendix B, at 100 or more employees, additionally requires Forms 300 and 301 from the residential care codes.

Now the counting rule, which is the reason organizations that owe this filing conclude they do not. It is not the number of people on your payroll at once. Section 1904.41(b)(2) is explicit: "each individual employed in the establishment at any time during the calendar year counts as one employee, including full-time, part-time, seasonal, and temporary workers."

That is a cumulative annual headcount. An organization that never has more than 15 people working at one time, but cycles 40 individuals through the year across turnover, seasonal hiring, and holiday staffing, has 40 employees for this purpose and is squarely inside the 20-to-249 band. Read it as a peak-staffing test and you will file nothing and believe you were right. But you won't be.

One more thing the rule says that the word "organization" hides: the count is by establishment — each physical location — not by organization. A food bank with three sites counts each site on its own. That can put you under the band when your organization-wide number would say otherwise.

Action: Look up your NAICS code — it appears on your Form 990, and confirm it is actually the right one — then check it against Appendix A and Appendix B to Subpart E in the eCFR. Be careful here: there is a different Appendix A, to Subpart B, that governs the partial exemption from keeping records at all. Two lists, two purposes, easily confused.

Count your employees the § 1904.41(b)(2) way: pull a payroll register for all of 2026 and count unique individuals, not headcount on a given day.

If you are covered, create or recover your OSHA Injury Tracking Application account now. Account recovery in late February against a hard March 2 deadline is a bad week.

Have your executive director certify and sign the 300A, and put the February 1 posting on the calendar as a recurring item.

ROI: The determination is free. OSHA's maximum penalty for an other-than-serious violation was $16,550 for violations proposed after January 15, 2025, and the amounts are adjusted for inflation annually — check the current figure before you quote one.

Time: 30 minutes to run the count, determine coverage, and set up the account.

Sources: 29 CFR 1904.41; 29 CFR 1904.32; OSHA — Penalties; OSHA — Injury Tracking Application​

Map Every Option Short of Merger Before Anyone Says the Word

Merger is one point at the far end of a spectrum, and boards jump to it because it is the only point on the spectrum with a name they already know. La Piana Consulting's Partnership Matrix lays out the rest, and several of those rungs deliver most of what a board actually wants without dissolving anybody.

Act as a nonprofit strategic restructuring advisor. My organization is [organization name and URL], with [number] employees, an annual budget of about [$], and these programs: [list]. The pressure driving this question is: [describe specifically — a funding cut, a retiring executive, a duplicate program across town, rising back-office cost, an inability to reach a population, a landlord problem]. Organizations we already work with or could plausibly work with: [list, with what each does]. Using La Piana Consulting's Partnership Matrix — which runs from Collaboration, through Strategic Restructuring in two tiers (Strategic Alliance, including administrative consolidation, joint programming, joint earned income activity and joint advocacy; and Corporate Integration, including joint venture corporations, management service organizations, parent-subsidiary structures, and merger or acquisition), to Asset Liquidation or Transfer — build me a table of every option available at each level for this specific pressure. For each option give me: what it would look like in practice for us, what it solves and what it does not, whether it requires board approval, whether it requires notice to or approval from our state attorney general, the realistic time to stand it up, the approximate cost including legal and consulting, and what we would give up. Then tell me which two options address my stated pressure at the lowest cost in autonomy, and make the argument against the option I am most likely to pick for emotional rather than strategic reasons. Flag every place where the answer depends on my state's nonprofit corporation law, and tell me exactly what to ask a lawyer.

That last instruction is the one that earns the hour. Boards rarely choose merger because it is optimal; they choose it because it is the option everyone in the room has heard of. Make the model argue against your instinct.

Run the Due Diligence on Yourself Before Somebody Else Does

The Cincinnati story above turns on a document package. Whatever the real reason one organization is not in that merger, the question it raises is worth answering for yourself: could you produce the package on demand?

Act as a nonprofit merger due diligence analyst. Prepare me for a due diligence review of my own organization, [organization name and URL], a 501(c)(3) in [state] with [number] employees and an annual budget of about [$]. First, produce a complete due diligence request list organized by category — organizational documents, tax filings, financial statements and audits, debt and obligations, real property and leases, equipment, employment and HR, IT systems, privacy and data security, licenses and accreditations, litigation and regulatory history, insurance, and contracts — with the specific documents and the number of years typically requested for each. Second, for each item, name the most common defect a reviewer finds at an organization our size: missing certified bylaws, board minutes that do not record required approvals, restricted funds with no documentation of the restriction, undocumented related-party transactions, expired licenses, unsigned amendments, employment agreements nobody countersigned. Third, tell me which defects are cheap to cure now and which take months. Fourth, give me a one-page readiness memo for my board stating what we could produce in three weeks, what we could not, and what I need budget or time to fix. Do not assume our documents are in order — assume they are not, and tell me how to check each one.

Do this whether or not a partnership is anywhere on the horizon. Every defect on that list is also a defect a funder's site visit, a lender, or an auditor can find. The list does not get shorter by being ignored.

Draft the Announcement You Would Have to Make

Both Seattle and Cincinnati used a public statement as a decision-making instrument rather than a communications deliverable. You can run that test on any hard decision, not only a merger.

Act as a nonprofit communications strategist and a skeptical board member at the same time. My organization is [organization name and URL]. We are considering [describe the decision — a merger, a program closure, a leadership transition, a major partnership, a location change]. Here is what is true about our situation, including the parts we would rather not publish: [be honest — financial position, job implications, what is driving the timeline, who has not been told]. Draft three documents. First, the public announcement we would issue if we proceeded, written for staff, donors, and the people we serve, in plain language, and it must answer the two questions everyone asks: is this organization in trouble, and is anyone losing their job. Second, the list of questions a local reporter, a program officer, and a twenty-year employee would each ask after reading it — the hard ones, not the courteous ones. Third, and most important: tell me which sentences in that announcement I cannot currently write truthfully, and what that reveals about the decision itself. Do not soften anything. If the honest version of this announcement would damage us, say so plainly and tell me what would have to change before it would not.

The third output is the whole point. An announcement you cannot write honestly is a decision you have not finished making, and finding that out costs an hour instead of a year.

The Keepers List — A 30-Minute Board Exercise

Overview. The NYMAC primer published by SeaChange Capital Partners offers a framework for evaluating collaborations called MAKER — Mission, Assets, Keepers, Event, Reality. Keepers answers one question: what must we keep? Most boards have never written theirs down, which means they discover them one at a time, in a negotiation, in front of a counterparty, usually as a surprise to each other. This exercise surfaces them in a room with no stakes, before there is a partner to offend. It needs no preparation, no financials, and no partnership actually on the table.

Materials. Index cards or sticky notes, three per person. A whiteboard or shared screen with three columns headed Must Keep, Would Fight For, and Could Trade.

How to run it (30 minutes).

1. Set the hypothetical (3 minutes). The chair says: an organization doing similar work, roughly our size, financially sound, has asked whether we would explore combining. We have not decided anything. Do not debate the merits — that is a different meeting.
2. Write three keepers, silently (7 minutes). Every board member writes, on separate cards, the three things about this organization they would not give up in such a conversation. One per card. No conferring, no discussion, no names on cards. (Prime the room only if it stalls: the name, the founding mission language, a specific program, the executive director, the building, independence itself, a particular funder relationship, who sits on this board.)
3. Sort without arguing (8 minutes). Read the cards aloud and place each in a column. Duplicates stack. The stacks are the point: an item that several members named independently is a genuine organizational commitment. An item one person named is that person's commitment, which is worth knowing and is not the same thing.
4. Ask the two hard questions (8 minutes). For each item in Must Keep: does keeping this serve the mission, or does it serve us? Both are legitimate answers, but the board should know which one it is giving. Then, for the single most-named item: if a partnership required giving this up, and the mission would demonstrably be better served, would we still say no? Do not resolve it. Watch who hesitates.
5. Write it down and date it (4 minutes). Record the three columns in the minutes with the date. This is now a governance document. When a real conversation arrives — in a year, under time pressure, with a consultant in the room — the board is not inventing its non-negotiables against a deadline.

In-person: Physical cards, collected before anyone speaks. The silence in step two is doing the work; the first person to talk otherwise sets the room's answer. Virtual: Members type three items privately to the facilitator, who posts them anonymized before any discussion.

Watch out for: Two failure modes. The first is the exercise turning into a referendum on whether to merge. It is not — there is no partner, and letting it drift there wastes the one chance to have this conversation without consequences. The second is a board that puts nothing in the Could Trade column. A board with no tradeable assets has not done the exercise; it has performed loyalty. Push once, gently. If the column stays empty, that is itself the finding, and it belongs in the minutes.

You'll know it worked when: at least one thing everyone assumed was sacred turns out to have been named by only two people.

The Sentence That Ends the Conversation

I have sat in rooms where nonprofit mergers were raised, and I can tell you roughly when the conversation dies.

It is not when someone asks about the money. The money conversation is usually fine — boards are comfortable with numbers, and even a bad balance sheet is at least a shared fact.

It dies about forty minutes in, when someone says, warmly and with no hostility at all: "And of course we'd keep our name."

Everyone nods. The meeting continues. But the conversation is over, because a boundary just went up that nobody agreed to and that nobody will now be able to lower without appearing to attack the person who raised it.

What strikes me about that sentence is that it is almost never about branding. Ask what sits underneath it and you find something real: a founder's memory, a community's trust that took thirty years to earn, a staff that has already been told twice that things would be fine. Those are legitimate. They deserve a hearing.

What they do not deserve is to be smuggled in as an aside.

That is the argument of this issue, which is not really about mergers at all.

Every organizational decision contains a small number of questions that can end the conversation. In a merger they are who leads, who is protected, and who gets to walk away. In a strategic plan it is which program we would close. In an executive search it is whether the founder actually leaves. The failure is almost never that boards get these questions wrong. It is that they let them stay implicit until somebody trips over one.

I want to be careful about one thing, because there is a version of this argument I do not hold. I am not saying every organization should merge, or that attachment to your institution is sentimentality to be trained out of a board.

The best sentence I read while working on this issue came from a board that concluded, after an honest assessment, that it was more important to maintain the integrity of the work than to maintain the organization. That is a hard thing to decide and an honorable one. But a board that concluded the opposite — that this institution, specifically, is worth preserving because of what it holds and who it holds it for — could be equally right. It would simply have to say so out loud, on the record, and take the consequences of having said it.

The failure is not attachment. The failure is unexamined attachment operating as a veto that never gets voted on.

So the ask this week is smaller than a merger. Find the sentence in your own organization that ends conversations. Every organization has one. "We've always done it in October." "The board would never go for that." "That's Karen's program." Say it out loud at your next meeting and ask whether anybody has ever actually tested it.

And forward this issue to one person — someone specific, with a name. The executive director who has been circling a partnership conversation for a year and cannot find the opening. The board chair who thinks the answer is a feasibility study.

If someone forwarded this to you: sign up here. It is free, it arrives Wednesdays, and that is the whole arrangement.

Then hit reply and tell me the sentence that ends conversations at your organization. I read every one myself, and I suspect the collection would teach more than anything I could write about it.

---

Most of you will never merge. Nearly all of you will at some point sit in a conversation with another organization about doing something together — sharing a back office, running a program jointly, taking on a service somebody else is putting down. The same order applies, and the stakes are low enough that you can practice.

See you next week.

— Ted

P.S. One forward. One name in a reply. That does more for this newsletter than a subscription ever did.

Founder and CEO Risk Alternatives, LLC 202.758.7572 (cell) ​Website​ Author of ​​Managing Your Nonprofit for Resilience​​​ I help nonprofits thrive by providing practical tools and support to address uncertainty and improve resilience.

Did a cool person forward you this email?

​Sign up here​

WHAT'S NEW LINKEDIN WEBSITE BOOK