Community AIDS Network, Inc. (CAN)

copyright 1998
ISBN 0-324-03084-3

Case Teaching Package
A case teaching package is available for this case. It includes strategies for case presentation, key concepts, solutions to the assignment questions in the case, and suggestions for the most effective ways to work this case into your course.

Length
This case is 13 pages in length and its case teaching package is 12 pages.

Abstract

Laura Smith is a member of the board of directors and past officer of the Community AIDS Network, Inc. (CAN). She is considering leaving the board after one three-year term. Laura believed that the executive director is mismanaging the agency and its finances but she also thinks that most of the board members are negligent in their duties. There are many allegations of wrongdoing but Laura does not have proof of wrongdoing. Laura is concerned about her reputation as well as the future of the agency.

Laura took her concerns to several officers; no one wanted to deal with the mismanagement. The case gives information about Laura's three years on the board; the case stops at the point where Laura is thinking about leaving the board. Students can determine what Laura should do as well as what they would do in a similar situation.

This case could be used in business and society courses, in organizational behavior or organization theory courses, or any business course that deals with governance at the board level. Sociology classes, psychology classes, executive training classes, and courses that cover nonprofit organizations could also benefit through use of the case. Any management class that deals with personnel, structure, or supervision (e.g., organizational behavior, organization theory, human resource management) could utilize this case. It is written at the undergraduate level and could easily be used in graduate classes or executive and board member training.

Study Questions

1. Describe Laura.
2. Does the organizational structure of CAN, Inc. contribute to the problems of the agency? If so, how?
3. Were the officers and directors of CAN, Inc. negligent? If so, how? If not, why not?
4. What could directors have done to prevent inappropriate actions by the executive director?
5. What should the directors do now?
6. What does an analysis of the four months of financial information demonstrate?
7. What management theories or constructs are demonstrated in the case?