Few decisions test a nonprofit's values like eliminating a position held by a loyal, long-serving employee. The person may have helped build the organization. Everyone likes them. And yet the budget, the program mix, or the strategic direction has shifted, and the role no longer fits. This is where boards often stumble, either by meddling in an operational decision or by looking away when they should be paying attention.
This article walks through where the board belongs in this situation, where it does not, and how to make sure a painful decision is made lawfully, humanely, and consistently with the mission.
Start With the Line Between Governance and Management
The day-to-day authority to hire, manage, and (with rare exceptions) terminate staff belongs to the executive director. That is true even when the employee is popular, tenured, or personally known to board members.
So the board's default posture when a single position is eliminated is: this is the ED's call to make and to communicate. Board members should not lobby to save a friend, override a staffing decision, or promise an employee that the board will intervene. Doing so undermines the executive and blurs accountability.
There is one important exception. If the position being eliminated is the executive director's own, or if the elimination is really a disguised termination of someone who raised a whistleblower concern or belongs to a protected class, the board's role changes dramatically. More on that below.
Where the Board Legitimately Belongs
Even when the decision itself is management's, the board has real responsibilities around it.
- Budget and strategy. If a position is being cut to close a deficit or to redirect resources, the board approved (or should approve) the budget and strategic priorities that drive that choice. The board's job is to ensure the elimination reflects a sound plan, not a panic move.
- Reduction-in-force decisions of scale. A single role is management's call. A layoff of several positions, a whole department, or a program shutdown is a strategic event the board should be briefed on and, depending on your bylaws and materiality, may need to weigh in on.
- Legal and reputational risk. Boards carry a duty of care. When an elimination could expose the organization to a wrongful-termination claim, a discrimination complaint, or serious donor and community fallout, the board should confirm the risk has been assessed and managed.
- Severance and precedent. If the ED proposes a severance package that is unusually generous, ties up reserves, or sets a precedent, that may warrant board or committee awareness.
Ask the Right Questions (Without Taking Over)
When the executive director informs the board chair, or the board more broadly, that a longtime position is being eliminated, the chair's job is to ask good questions, not to negotiate the outcome. Useful ones:
- What is driving this: budget, strategy, restructuring, or performance? (These lead to very different processes.)
- Have we documented the business reason clearly and objectively?
- Did we consult counsel or an HR professional before finalizing?
- Is this employee in a protected class, over 40, on leave, or a recent complainant? If so, what steps are we taking to reduce legal risk?
- What severance, benefits continuation, and transition support are we offering?
- How and when will staff, key volunteers, and (if relevant) major funders be told?
If the answers are thin, the board's contribution is to slow the process down enough to get them right, not to reverse the decision.
The Traps to Avoid
The rescue mission. A board member hears a friend is losing their job and starts working the phones. This is the most common and most damaging misstep. It puts the employee in the middle, weakens the executive, and can create legal exposure if it looks like the board is second-guessing a lawful decision. If you have genuine concerns about process, raise them privately with the chair, not with the employee.
The rubber stamp. The opposite failure. The board treats an elimination as purely operational even when it carries strategic weight or clear legal risk. Silence is not neutrality here; it is abdication of the duty of care.
The disguised termination. Sometimes "the position is being eliminated" is a euphemism for firing a specific person while avoiding a performance conversation. This is legally risky, especially if the role is quietly refilled a few months later under a new title. The board should confirm that if a role is truly eliminated, it stays eliminated, and that performance problems are handled as performance problems.
The retaliation angle. If the employee recently reported financial irregularities, raised a harassment complaint, or engaged in protected activity, an elimination can look like retaliation even if it is not. When that timing exists, the board should insist on legal review before anything is final.
When It's the Executive Director's Role at Stake
Everything above assumes the board is one step removed. But the board directly employs the executive director. If financial pressure or restructuring means the ED's role should change or be eliminated, that is squarely the board's decision, and it must run through the full board or executive committee with proper process: documented rationale, legal review, a fair severance discussion, and a succession or interim plan. Do not let this decision be made informally by two or three officers.
Governing the Human Side
Compliance and process protect the organization. Culture protects the mission. A board that oversees a values-driven nonprofit should care how people are treated on the way out, because staff and volunteers are watching.
The board's role is not to script the goodbye, but to hold the executive accountable for handling it with dignity:
- Was the employee told in person and privately, not by memo or in front of others?
- Are they receiving fair notice and support to land on their feet?
- Is the organization thanking them publicly and appropriately for their service?
- Are remaining staff being supported through the change and told what they can be told?
How you end an employment relationship says as much about your values as how you begin one.
Document, Then Move Forward
Make sure the file reflects a legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason for the elimination, the process followed, and any severance agreement (ideally reviewed by counsel and including a release where appropriate). If the board discussed the matter, capture that in the minutes at the right level of detail, noting the strategic or budget rationale without airing confidential personnel specifics.
The Takeaway
When a longtime employee's position is eliminated, resist two temptations: rescuing the person and ignoring the situation. The decision usually belongs to your executive director, but the board owns the budget and strategy behind it, the legal and reputational risk around it, and the standard of decency that governs it. Stay in your lane, ask sharp questions, protect the organization, and insist that a hard decision be carried out with fairness and care.