Add new comment

Add new comment

I appreciate your concern about the public purpose of a single member nonprofit, but we have seen too many social entrepreneurs sacrifice years of their lives creating a new entity to pursue their ideal for a better world, only to have a board of their "friends" kick them out of office because the friends didn't share the view or wanted to go in another direction. That has always struck me as a great shame and a real loss for the community. Since it is perfectly legal to protect the founder with a single member corporation, we have often recommended and done it.
 
There are obviously some risks, but there is also something of a self-correcting mechanism because if the founder acts arbitrarily in ousting directors, the founder will find it hard to attract new directors and hard to expand the operations. I recognize that the form also creates issues of founder-transition that may be a little more difficult. But where the entire effort depends on the energy and vision of the founder, it has seemed to me appropriate to reflect that fact in the governing documents.

Sign-up for our weekly Q&A; get a free report on electioneering