Governance Lag
Governance Lag
Governance Lag Market Archetype Mechanical Natural
Tier
Stable
Trajectory Thumbprint

Governance Lag

What does this mean?

Revenue and Program Scale spike rapidly, but the Governance Score remains stagnant. The organization has outgrown its founding era but hasn't installed proper oversight.

The Path Forward

The Scaffold

Brings immediate structural maturity. It represents the necessity of outside, independent oversight to manage new scale, breaking the echo chamber of a founding 'friends and family' board.

The Scaffold
The Scaffold
Institutional Health Scores
5-yr trend: Governance Lag ↑
Overall
57
Score
Governance
50
Score
Financial
90
Score
Program
15
Score

Institutional Epochs

2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
Financial Era
Governance Era
Trajectory Era
Governance Lag

Historical Performance

Year Revenue Top Comp Comp % Rev Score Phase Label Outlook Details
2023 — — — 57 Fragile Recovery
2022 — — — 46 Fragile Recovery
2021 — — — 41 Fragile Decline Risk
2020 — — — 50 Fragile Recovery
2019 — — — 53 Fragile Stable Watch
2018 — — — 53 Fragile Recovery
2017 — — — 47 Fragile Recovery
2016 — — — 41 Fragile Decline Risk
2015 — — — 47 Fragile Stable Watch

Officer compensation history

Tax year 2023

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Bob Balsman Board President —
Dale VanZant Board President —
Deborah Heller Treasurer —
Laura Bonnet Secretary —
Bob Coombes Board Member —
Karen Main Accompanist, Rehearsals For Soloists, Board Mbr —
Ian Tinney Board Member —
Michael Bonnet Board Member —
Amy Hamilton Board Member —
Kathy Pirie Board President —
Nancy Mervar Grant Writer —

Tax year 2022

Name Title Phone Email Compensation
Bob Balsman Board President —
Dale VanZant Board President —
Deborah Heller Treasurer —
Trudy James-Parks Secretary —
Bob Coombes Board Member —
Kathy Pirie Board President —
Ian Tinney Board Member —
Aimee Elsey Board Member —
Karen Main Accompanist, Rehearsals For Soloists, Board Mbr —
Scott Hamlin Board Member —
Nancy Mervar Grant Writer —
Officer contact details, exact compensation figures, and active litigation are available to verified members.
Request access
Score breakdown

Score breakdown

Financial resilience
90 / 100
weight 40%
Governance risk
50 / 100
weight 40%
Program scale
15 / 100
weight 20%
Overall
57 / 100
Stable

The three components combine into a single 0–100 score weighted as shown. Full methodology →

Peer comparison

Compared to 271 other orgs in CO with NTEE prefix A6.

Most-divergent component: financial score sits 40 points above the peer median (90 vs. 50).

5-year trend: Governance Lag

Revenue and Program Scale spike rapidly, but the Governance Score remains stagnant. The organization has outgrown its founding era but hasn't installed proper oversight.

Overall score has gone from 53 → 57 over 5 years (improving by 4 points).

What's driving this score

What would change this score

The two changes that would most improve this score:

  1. Stabilize program expenses or grow earned-income revenue to break the consecutive-deficit pattern (~8 points to financial score).

Improving governance is a board decision. These are the levers.