An ambient walk through the Vietnam Veterans Memorial grounds in Washington D.C.
This piece originally appeared on the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Video: Vietnam Veterans Memorial grounds
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Another recruitment drive won’t fix a nonprofit board. A practical guide to sharing real decision-making power with diverse members: acknowledge, affirm, act.
Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images
Before Recruiting Diverse Board Members, Examine Who Holds Power
Oct 29, 2026
Nonprofit leaders keep asking me where they will find the next generation of diverse board talent. My question is what those leaders will be allowed to change once they arrive. In this piece, I outline concrete steps boards can take to ensure diverse members have real opportunities to shape organizational decision-making and to translate good intentions into meaningful progress.
In my board service and consulting work, I hear the concern from executives and grassroots activists alike. They worry about recruiting successors, sustaining funding, and governing organizations whose work increasingly depends on partnerships beyond their own walls. I share those concerns. I also wonder whether another recruitment initiative will solve what troubles them.
I’ve witness organizations respond to tense board dynamics with renewed recruitment while leaving contested policies and decision-making practices unchanged. New members enter the same arrangements that frustrated their predecessors. Before declaring a leadership shortage, boards owe themselves an honest examination of what happens after someone accepts the invitation. This reflection should focus on specific areas such as who sets the agenda, how committee assignments are made, whose voices shape discussions, who is encouraged to lead or chair committees, and how input from new members is incorporated into decision-making. By reviewing these elements, boards can translate their commitment to diversity into meaningful change.
I bring to this question my experience as a former chief program officer at Bridge Alliance, a minister, and a writer on racial justice and community responsibility. Much of that work concerns how people act together when their experiences and access to power differ. A boardroom is one place those differences acquire consequences: Someone’s judgment shapes a budget; someone else’s concern never reaches the agenda.
My mentor and friend, Dr. Lilya Wagner, offers a useful starting point. Her book, Diversity and Philanthropy: Expanding the Circle of Giving, examines how culture, religion, family, and tradition shape generosity. Her scholarship challenges fundraising approaches that fail to account for how different communities give.
That insight has implications for whom boards recognize as a leader. If boards define generosity chiefly by check size, the search for talent will repeatedly return to people with money and access to familiar networks.
In Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community, I use the framework acknowledge, affirm, and act to help communities address racial injustice. It can also help boards examine the distance between their stated commitments and their practices.
Start by acknowledging what recruitment requirements exclude. Financial expertise, professional contacts, and personal giving can all serve an organization well. But a substantial giving minimum also measures access to money. A nomination process limited to referrals favors people board members already know. Meetings held during working hours can keep otherwise willing candidates from serving. Less obvious forms of exclusion matter just as much: heavy reliance on organizational jargon in meetings and materials can discourage candidates who bring invaluable lived experience but lack prior boardroom exposure. Likewise, expecting new members to already have board experience may shut out promising leaders from communities who have not previously been invited into these roles.
An organization I advised initiated an “open” application process for prospective board members and scheduled meetings at non-conventional times and means. Such changes enabled participation by more people with diverse schedules and backgrounds. Thus, addressing a barrier to organizational leadership. A simple adaption executed without waiting for a new pool of candidates to appear.
Boards should also examine departures. When a member resigns, ask what assignments that person received, whether colleagues took their concerns seriously, and whether disagreement carried a personal cost. An exit can tell a board something its recruitment materials will never reveal.
Affirming people’s contributions requires taking their knowledge seriously in decisions. A parent who has navigated public services may recognize a problem in a proposed program that other members miss. An organizer’s community relationships may help explain why an apparently sound initiative has little support. Seek those abilities deliberately and assess them with the care given to financial or legal expertise.
Fundraising expectations deserve the same attention. Wagner addressed board participation in her article, “The Road Least Traveled: Board Roles in Fundraising.” Boards should prepare members for that work through training and specific assignments. Some can contribute substantial gifts. Others can introduce supporters, cultivate relationships, thank donors, or explain the organization’s work to audiences it has struggled to reach. Expectations should reflect individual capacity while making everyone responsible for helping sustain the mission.
Action becomes harder when it requires changing who decides. My work at Bridge Alliance and my writing about cooperation across differences inform my conviction that shared purpose must withstand disagreement. Board members cannot reasonably invite a broader range of perspectives and expect every established practice to survive unchallenged.
Recruiting community members for voting board positions and committee leadership gives them a chance to shape decisions. An organization might also authorize a community committee to allocate a defined program budget. Such arrangements need clear limits, reporting expectations, and a dispute-resolution process. For example, boards can outline roles, decision-making authority, and boundaries in a written charter or committee description, revisit expectations during regular check-ins, and establish reporting procedures to provide updates to the full board. Shared authority requires preparation and oversight; ambiguity leaves everyone guessing about who is accountable. Funding decisions offer an immediate test.
When a prospective grant promises expansion, whose assessment of the workload counts? Do people familiar with delivering or receiving services help evaluate the proposal? Boards need to know the administrative demands, uncovered expenses, and obligations that remain after funding ends. Their willingness to hear an inconvenient answer may prevent an expensive mistake.
Funders can support this work by paying for leadership development, sound financial systems, and community participation. Flexible funding gives organizations room to act on what they learn, including when they learn that an attractive grant would pull them away from their purpose.
At the next board meeting, put a recruitment requirement or a reserved decision on the agenda. Examine whom the current practice excludes, why it exists, and whether it still serves the mission. Agree on a change and make a plan to revisit its impact at a future meeting by adding a follow-up review to the agenda. This encourages accountability and continuous improvement. That is work a board can begin before filling another vacancy. Wagner’s scholarship asks us to recognize generosity we have overlooked. Boards should be equally willing to recognize leadership outside their customary circles.
The next generation is already organizing, giving, caring, and solving problems in our communities. The invitation to board service becomes credible when those leaders can help determine what happens next.
Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, and scholar-practitioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.
jimfeng/Getty Images
Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance
Oct 29, 2026
The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.
This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:
- Trust must be intentionally built between the two political parties before they can solve problems.
- Legislators must listen to one another and understand what motivates and concerns their colleagues.
- Shared experiences built on close personal interactions can bring state legislators together, help them identify shared values and goals, and find ways to work together for the common good.
When this happens, it almost always involves sharing information about each legislator’s perspective, their district’s challenges and opportunities, and a shared desire to make things work for all Pennsylvanians. The Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange (PLE) builds on this success and reinforces the idea that Pennsylvania benefits when we work together.
The PLE pairs legislators from opposite parties to visit each other's districts, focusing on districts that differ in geography, economy, culture, politics, and community demographics. The PLE aims to honor these differences, define common problems across communities, and identify shared interests and goals.
PLE trips typically last 12–36 hours, depending on the district’s geographic size. The Institute of Politics (IOP) designs itineraries in collaboration with the host legislator to showcase unique experiences, industries, businesses, institutions, and community leadership within the district. The trips will provide meaningful opportunities for local and county civic, business, education, and faith leaders to connect with the two members. Itineraries may include tours, roundtable conversations, meetings with local civic and community leaders, and shared meals to help legislators better understand a district's economic, social, political, and cultural makeup. The PLE will nurture authentic connections, bipartisan collegiality, and trust across differences.
The host legislator designs visits to reflect key challenges, opportunities, and constituent needs in their communities, and they exclude lobbying activity. Instead, visits are centered on relationship-building and introduction to each other’s district, with an eye toward potential future collaboration that grows organically from what is experienced on the
The Pennsylvania Exchange is built on a simple yet powerful premise: when lawmakers step outside the Capitol and into one another’s communities, they see the Commonwealth—and each other—with fresh eyes. Each bipartisan visit focuses on the issues that matter most to Pennsylvanians. By grounding itineraries in local, regional, and statewide policy concerns, participating legislators confront real challenges together and begin identifying solutions that can make a tangible difference back in Harrisburg.
These exchanges are uniquely valuable because of the diversity of the participants. Lawmakers come from regions shaped by distinct histories, industries, economies, and natural resources. As they travel across these varied landscapes, they gain a deeper appreciation for the perspectives that define Pennsylvania’s political and cultural mosaic. They discover not only the differences that shape their constituencies but also the unexpected commonalities that can form the basis for a shared purpose.
During each visit, policymakers hear directly from local leaders, residents, and stakeholders—voices often missing or overlooked in statewide debates. These conversations surface new priorities and reveal areas of alignment that transcend partisan politics. Participants often discover shared interests they didn’t know they had, along with policy ideas that emerge organically from Pennsylvanians' lived experiences.
By the end of each exchange, lawmakers return to Harrisburg with more than goodwill. They carry concrete ideas for legislative action—sparked by joint exploration, honest dialogue, and the recognition that durable solutions are possible when leaders see the Commonwealth through one another’s eyes. The Pennsylvania Exchange strengthens relationships, broadens understanding, and equips policymakers to craft bipartisan legislation grounded in the realities of the communities they serve.
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.
Aitor Diago / Getty Images
The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.
Oct 28, 2026
Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.
Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.
These efforts can do a lot of damage even when courts reject them, because every week of delay leaves voters without the representative they chose. Election officials, judges, reporters and voters need to prepare now, before the first post-election challenge arrives.
And the challenges will arrive. Whoever holds power over who takes a seat has used it before, and the delay always lands on voters.
After the 2020 election, Donald Trump and his allies filed over 60 lawsuits challenging results in states he lost, and most of them failed due to a lack of evidence. In Michigan, Republican canvassers in Wayne County blocked certification for hours before reversing course. The suits lost, but they still caused major political delays.
Delay can come from inside Congress, too. Take, for instance, Rep. Adelita Grijalva, who won Arizona’s 7th District special election on September 23, 2025, but wasn’t sworn in until November 12th, 50 days later. House Speaker Mike Johnson’s explanation kept changing: first he was waiting for official results, then for the House to return to session, then for the government shutdown to end. Critics pointed to her pledge to sign the Epstein discharge petition. Democrats noted that Johnson had sworn in two Republicans, Jimmy Patronis and Randy Fine, on a day the House had gone out of session. Arizona’s attorney general sued to try to force the swearing-in, and Johnson called the suit “patently absurd.” Still, Grijalva took her seat only when the House came back.
In this case, one official’s discretion over procedure kept more than 800,000 Arizonans without a vote in the House for seven weeks.
To be sure, seating disputes are rare. The House last refused to seat a certified winner on the first day of a new Congress in 1985, when the Democratic majority declined to seat Indiana Republican Richard McIntyre and, months later, seated his Democratic opponent by four votes. Federal law also requires the House clerk to list members whose credentials show they were elected under state and federal law, which leaves little room for personal or political discretion. But little room and no room are different, and the limited space still provides room for a long fight.
Preparing for that fight belongs to all of us.
State officials already know certification timelines. It’s their job to know. They should publish those timelines now and meet them to build public trust. Knowing that legal interference is coming, courts should be prepared to schedule expedited hearings so challenges can’t run on forever. Reporters should explain, now, that slow counts and recounts in close races are normal rather than signs of fraud, and they should separate filed lawsuits from proven problems. Both parties could also publicly commit to seating every certified winner when the new Congress convenes on Jan. 3rd.
Voters have work to do, too. We can learn our state’s certification deadlines and give the counts the time they need without claiming fraud. Millions of people vote, and counting every ballot takes a little while. We also need to remember that when a television network calls a race, that call is a media organization’ projection. It isn’t the official result, and no one ever officially wins on election day. The certified count decides who wins.
The lawsuits in Alaska and California show us that legal battles are coming. The delay in seating Arizona’s 7th District Representative shows that even when the winner is clear, it can take weeks for that person to take office. If the challenges after November 3rd go the way these suits suggest, voters in other states could wait just as long, or longer for the representation the Constitution promises them.
We still have time to hold the people in power to that promise.
Stephanie Toliver is a Public Voices Fellow and a member of the OpEd Alumni Project sponsored by the University of Illinois.
Keep ReadingShow less
Woman at the podium
Getty Images
Before They Run: What the U.S. Can Learn from Brazil’s Nonpartisan Political Academy
Oct 28, 2026
SÃO PAULO, Brazil — As the United States grapples with polarization, declining trust in institutions, and questions about democracy's future, some Brazilians are pursuing an unconventional strategy to strengthen civic life: training better political leaders before they ever run for office.
One organization at the center of that effort is RenovaBR, a nonprofit, nonpartisan initiative founded to prepare citizens for public service, educate prospective candidates, and support elected officials throughout their careers. The organization describes its mission as promoting "political education as a path to renewal" to help create a more qualified, representative, and effective political class.
During a recent visit to Brazil as part of the Brazilian Blueprint—an intercultural civic-learning initiative organized by Stories Change Power—I met with many organizations working to strengthen democracy from the ground up. Renova BR stood out because it treats political leadership as a discipline that can be taught, studied, and improved systematically.
Its curriculum focuses on public policy, governance, political communication, campaign management, and democratic institutions, preparing future public officials while encouraging broader civic participation. Unlike traditional candidate-recruitment programs, RenovaBR does not align with a single political party. Instead, it develops leaders from varied ideological backgrounds who share a baseline commitment to democratic values, ethical conduct, and effective governance.
In the United States, leadership initiatives typically focus on civic engagement, campaign mechanics, or party-specific recruitment. Few operate at RenovaBR's scale or explicitly frame political leadership as a democratic skill to cultivate formally—a philosophy that carries renewed weight as Americans look past the midterm elections and toward 2028.
When I asked what specific steps RenovaBR has taken to rebuild public confidence amid widespread skepticism, Gabriel Morais, Director of Institutional Relations, emphasized that effective leadership requires understanding citizens' needs rather than merely pursuing political power.
“RenovaBR was founded in 2017 in response to widespread dissatisfaction with politics in Brazil," said Morais. "Our conviction is that rebuilding public trust requires political leaders who listen to people, act ethically, and have the skills to turn public needs into effective policies. Over the past nine years, we have pursued that goal through four main areas of work.”
To execute this mission, the organization operates across four core pillars:
Broadening Leadership Access: Offering tuition-free educational programs to welcome individuals from diverse professions, regions, and social backgrounds—including those who previously never considered running for office.
Vetting for Democratic Values: Using a thorough selection process, including background checks and interviews, to ensure candidates are committed to ethics, transparency, inclusion, and continuous learning.
Continuous Skill-Building & Support: Providing practical training in governance, accountability, and ethical conduct that extends beyond election day through ongoing peer mentorship and professional development for elected officials.
Cross-Ideological Dialogue: Serving as a nonpartisan platform to train leaders across the democratic spectrum, fostering collaboration and constructive problem-solving across opposing viewpoints.
These efforts have yielded tangible results. Since 2017, RenovaBR has trained over 3,600 citizens, and more than 400 alumni have won public office since the 2018 electoral cycle. In the 2026 general election, 47 RenovaBR-trained leaders were elected in the first round alone, spanning 14 political parties across 17 Brazilian states.
“We recognize that rebuilding public trust is a long-term effort that depends on many institutions and actors. Our contribution is to prepare leaders to earn that trust through their everyday conduct: listening to the people they represent, making informed decisions, working across differences, and being accountable to the public," he said.
I also explored how Brazil's approach to training leaders differs from the United States' and what American civic organizations might learn from a model that prioritizes political pluralism over party loyalty.
“As a nonpartisan organization, RenovaBR’s model involves training people from across the ideological spectrum and from multiple different backgrounds together, in the same classroom, teaching them how to collaborate with each other constructively,” Morais said. “American civil society organizations could learn from this model and encourage future leaders with opposing viewpoints to work together and overcome polarization.”
While traditional political training often occurs within partisan silos that limit exposure to differing perspectives, bringing leaders together in shared spaces teaches them to negotiate, disagree respectfully, and collaborate—an approach especially relevant as both nations navigate deep political divisions.
Finally, I asked whether Brazil's recent experiences with democratic backsliding had reshaped how the organization prepares future leaders.
“The pressures Brazil’s democracy has faced have strengthened our conviction that institutional resilience depends, in part, on the commitment and conduct of the people who serve in public office,” Morais explained. “Leaders need both the skills to develop effective policies and a clear understanding of their responsibility to uphold democratic rules, including when those rules produce outcomes they disagree with."
“We want the leaders we train to advocate firmly for their ideas while recognizing the legitimacy of political opponents and respecting the institutions that allow democratic competition to take place. Preparing people to govern also means preparing them to exercise power responsibly, accept its limits, and remain accountable to the public.”
These insights highlight a central lesson from Brazil's democratic renewal: strong institutions matter, but so do the people who staff and lead them.
As Americans continue debating electoral reform, civic engagement, and institutional resilience, organizations like RenovaBR offer a compelling thesis. Democracy is not preserved solely through laws, courts, and elections—it is equally sustained by investing in the character, preparation, and standards of the people who choose to serve.
That may be one of Brazil's most vital lessons for the United States.
Hugo Balta traveled through Brazil, reporting on how the country's efforts to strengthen democracy, expand civic participation, and address environmental challenges may hold valuable insights for the United States.
Balta is executive editor of The Fulcrum, publisher of the Latino News Network, and twice president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. He is an accredited Solutions Journalism and Complicating the Narratives trainer with the Solutions Journalism Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More