He was excited to be a new director on the association's board of directors. By his second meeting, he was feeling trapped in an unpleasant three-year commitment.

This scenario happens too often. While associations seek leaders, the culture of the board may not be so welcoming. A board set in its ways, or without the principles of engagement and transparency, will be a hurdle for new volunteers.

These disappointments below have been voiced by volunteers. They represent the frustrations of new board members.

Disparaged — The director was respected in his profession and was a 10-year member of the association. He decided now was the time to serve the organization. At his first board meeting when he asked questions or offered perspectives, he noticed the body language of the senior directors. At the break, one told him, "You have to pay your dues — don't jump into these conversations." Another said, "Give yourself a couple of meetings to learn the politics before voicing opinions."

Orientation — This director had anticipated an orientation to learn responsibilities and more about the association. Three months passed between the installation and the first board meeting. He wondered if he missed the training. Would he receive a leadership manual or access to documents? He asked about it, and was told, "We do orientation every two years, you'll be included next time." He felt foolish at meetings without a briefing about the budget, resources, strategic plan and organizational charts.

Nominations — When the nominating committee called, she was honored. They asked her questions (things they should have known if they had read the membership directory and her profile). They said, "OK, we'll give your name to the board." The selection process did not communicate the time requirements or expectation to disclose conflicts of interest. They never mentioned the mission and priorities. She was shocked at the first meeting when she was told every director must contribute $1,000 to the foundation and sign up two new members. Shouldn't the nominating committee have briefed her thoroughly?

Conflicts — This director understood his allegiance was to the association, not his business, specialty or chapter. He signed the conflict of interest disclosure form. Soon he noted some directors were gaining personally. One director's spouse was catering lunch for a fee; another mentioned his son was working on the new website; and two directors asked to speak at the conference for the $500 honorariums. He was uncomfortable to learn that board members had their convention fees waived — how did this look to the membership?

Financial reports — The director knew financial reporting was a duty of the treasurer. At the meeting, the treasurer said, "Staff will give my report." After the report, the director asked questions about savings and an audit. The officers bristled. (In his own business, he knew how to read a financial report.) After the treasurer's report, there was no motion to accept or approve the report as presented. He knew he was responsible for resources but couldn't get answers to an audit, policies or savings.

Aimless — This director knew organizations need a strategic plan. Her last board kept a copy on the table. When directors offered "good ideas," they referenced the plan. This new board had no plan. The chairman announced his priorities for the year and mentioned "wanting to leave a legacy." Meetings of the board seemed directed by the chairman's priorities instead or anything that came to mind.

Surprise! — This is a director who got more than expected. By the second meeting, he was assigned to chair the conference committee. His role was morphing from governance to task management. The nominating committee said, "You won't have to do much except attend quarterly meetings." Soon he was told he must seek sponsorships, speak at the college and address nearby chapters. If he'd known it required as much time, he would have reconsidered.

Time management — She drove three hours to get to board meetings on time, leaving home at 5 a.m. for the 8 a.m. start. Arriving on time, she was frustrated that the meeting started 40 minutes late because the chair wanted to give others time to arrive (they barely had a quorum). At her second meeting, the chair arrived late. Both meetings ran over the scheduled adjournment by more than an hour. She felt there was no respect for volunteer time.

Reports and updates — What compounded the late start and running over time was the multitude of reports and updates. There were 17 board, staff and committee reports on the agenda. One of the committee chairs started with, "We haven't done anything since the last meeting," but she talked for 15 minutes. I suggested the board use a consent agenda to distribute so many reports and updates in advance. However, the chairman said everyone deserves to be heard, and my idea was dismissed.

Committee work — At the first meeting, directors were informed they would all need to chair a committee. When asked if it was better to have directors serve as committee liaisons instead of chair, the reply was, "Our directors have always served a dual role of committee chair and board members. It is too cumbersome to rely on members for committee work." He felt it was a missed opportunity to develop future leaders.

Token students — This director thought the board was progressive by including a student and a recent graduate. Both offered good input and attended regularly. After a few meetings, he noticed they never voted and asked why. They said they'd like to vote but were told that is for the more seasoned directors.

Each scenario is real. You may recognize them on your own board. No director should have to regret his or her commitment to serve because of poor board practices.