Board Presentation Talking Points
Speaking notes for ED presenting to board
The Prompt
The Prompt
Create Board Presentation Talking Points for [ORGANIZATION NAME] to brief the Board on [PRIMARY TOPIC] at the [BOARD/COMMITTEE NAME] meeting on [DATE].
MEETING CONTEXT (fill REQUIRED; optional items can be “TBD”):
- Total presentation time (REQUIRED): [15/30/45] minutes
- Primary goal (REQUIRED): [DECISION/INPUT/FYI]
- Key decision needed (if DECISION/INPUT): [SPECIFIC DECISION OR “N/A”]
- Presenter (REQUIRED): [EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NAME], [TITLE]
- Reviewed by (optional): [STAFF/COMMITTEE]
REQUIRED SECTIONS
1) Opening Frame (30 seconds spoken)
- Mission anchor: One sentence linking topic to mission/community outcome
- Urgency: Why now (recent event/deadline/opportunity)
- Clear ask: “We need the board to [DECIDE/INPUT/FYI] on [SPECIFIC ASK]”
2) Agenda Overview
- List 3–5 sections: [SECTION 1], [SECTION 2], [SECTION 3], [ADD IF NEEDED]
- Allocate minutes to each (must total your time above)
- Note planned Q&A pauses (recommend after each major section)
3) Section Content Bullets (for each section listed)
Provide 2–3 crisp bullets (10–15 words; action-oriented fragments):
- Key message: [Main point]
- Evidence: [One metric/story from FY[YYYY]/latest quarter; cite source/timeframe]
- So what: [Impact on mission/community]
Example format:
Section: Program Expansion
• Add evening hours at Main Street site
• Waitlist: 47 families; 68% need after-5pm access (Q2 FY2024 survey)
• Reaches 30 more families/month—fastest-growing demographic
4) Financial Summary (if applicable)
- Budget impact: [$ AMOUNT, timeframe]
- Funding status: [secured/pending/gap of $X]
- If gap: 2–3 scenarios with trade-offs
• Option A: [approach] – Trade-off: [gain/loss]
• Option B: [approach] – Trade-off: [gain/loss]
- Capacity note: [effect on small team workload; what will pause/stop]
5) Anticipated Questions (5–7)
List likely questions with one-sentence evidence-based responses (use data, policy, benchmark, or recent case with source/timeframe):
- Risk:
- Equity/access:
- Sustainability:
- Governance/process:
- Financial exposure:
- Community impact:
- Implementation capacity:
6) Presentation Flow Elements
- Transition lines: One sentence bridging each section
- Visual cues: What’s ON SCREEN vs. spoken only (don’t read slides)
- Human element: One beneficiary quote/story (program, date)
7) Board Dynamics Management
- Invite quieter voices: [approach; who you’ll call on and when]
- If [BOARD MEMBER NAME/ROLE] dominates: [respectful redirect plan]
- Defer to committee/staff on: [topics]
- Read-the-room cues: [when to pause/redirect/park]
8) Closing (30 seconds)
- Recap (3 bullets): [POINT 1], [POINT 2], [POINT 3]
- Restate ask: [specific request]
- Decision timeline: [date needed]
- Next steps/owners: [who does what by when]
9) Parking Lot (3–5 items)
- [Item + owner]
- [Item + owner]
- [Item + owner]
TONE & STYLE
- Choose tone: [FORMAL governance/finance] / [WARM mission/people] / [CASUAL retreat]
- Bullets only; sentence fragments, not full sentences
- Target length: 400–500 words total
- Use concrete nonprofit language; cite FY/latest-quarter metrics; name capacity limits; center community impact
- Avoid jargon/buzzwords/clichés; be confident, humble, specific
PRIORITIZATION (if time is tight)
- 15 minutes: Sections 1–4, 8–9; limit to 3 sections; 5 questions max
- 30 minutes: All sections; 3–5 sections; full Q&A
- 45 minutes: All sections plus deeper scenarios; longer Q&A
OUTPUT QUALITY CHECKLIST
- Fits allocated time
- Clear ask and decision timeline
- At least 3 concrete metrics (with source/timeframe)
- Realistic money/staff capacity notes
- One human story/quote
- Hardest questions anticipated with evidence-based answers
- Next steps with owners and dates
QUICK START (fill only these; others “TBD”)
- [ORGANIZATION NAME]
- [PRIMARY TOPIC]
- [DATE]
- [TOTAL TIME: 15/30/45]
- [PRIMARY GOAL: DECISION/INPUT/FYI]
- [3 MAIN SECTIONS]
- [TONE: FORMAL/WARM/CASUAL]How to Customize
- Replace all [BRACKETED] fields with your specific information
- Adjust tone and length as needed for your audience
- Review and personalize before using
Pro Tips
- Test this prompt with your preferred AI tool before using in production
- Always review AI output for accuracy and appropriateness
- Customize outputs to match your organization’s voice and brand
Related Prompts
(See other prompts in the board category)
Example Outputs
Compare scenarios: We tested this prompt with 3 different nonprofit contexts. Each scenario shows outputs from GPT-5, Claude, and Gemini. Select a model above each scenario to compare.
Small Community Org
Southside Youth Arts Collective—small urban youth arts nonprofit (budget ~$600k) serving BIPOC teens; donors include local foundations, individuals, and small businesses.
View scenario details
Southside Youth Arts Collective — Board Presentation Talking Points Topic: Approve Saturday Arts Pilot and restricted grant acceptance | Date: March 12, 2026 Presenter: Aisha Grant, Executive Director | Reviewed by: Program Committee; Youth Advisory Council
1) Opening Frame (30 seconds) - Mission anchor: Weekend arts access for Southside teens; safer, joyful creative space - Urgency: FY2025 demand spike; grant sign-by 3/15/26; summer timeline window - Clear ask: Board DECISION—approve 6‑month Saturday pilot, accept $35k grant, authorize 0.25 FTE
2) Agenda Overview (15 minutes total) - Pilot Rationale (4 min) + 1 min Q&A - Budget & Capacity (4 min) + 1 min Q&A - Risks & Mitigations (2 min) + 1 min Q&A - Community Feedback (1 min) + 30 sec Q&A - Closing and motion (30 sec)
3) Section Content Bullets Section: Pilot Rationale • Saturday arts pilot meets unmet demand; deepens neighborhood youth engagement • FY2025 Q2 survey: 64% prefer Saturdays; waitlist averaged 29 youth/Q2–Q3 • Reach 45 additional teens/semester; safer weekend options; arts access equity
Section: Budget & Capacity • 6‑month pilot cost $42,800; restricted grant covers most needs • Secured $35,000; pending $5,000 (City Micro‑Grant, notification by 4/10/26) • Authorize 0.25 FTE; pause newsletter redesign; ED covers 2 Saturdays/month
Section: Risks & Mitigations • Manageable risks: staffing, safety, space; clear protocols and backups • Two CPR‑certified TAs lined up; background checks current; site MOU in draft • Low financial exposure; time‑bound pilot; defined exit/scale criteria
Section: Community Feedback • Youth and families asked for Saturdays; co-designed schedule and courses • Youth Advisory Council Jan 2026: 10/12 in favor; three parent focus groups • Culturally responsive classes; transit stipends; parent volunteer roster
4) Financial Summary - Budget impact: $42,800 for 6 months - Funding status: Secured $35,000; pending $5,000; gap $2,800 - If gap—scenarios with trade-offs • Option A: Two sites May–Oct; more reach/more strain; higher logistics risk • Option B: Single site launch; manageable staffing; fewer seats; simpler ops • Option C: Delay to fall; no strain now; lose momentum; grant at risk - Capacity note: Add 0.25 FTE; pause newsletter redesign; ED covers 2 Saturdays/month
5) Anticipated Questions - Risk: Safety plan? Two staff/security 1:10; sign-in/out; incident protocol; weekday-tested FY2025 - Equity/access: Affordability? Sliding scale $0–$25; 20 transit stipends/semester; 30 reserved seats - Sustainability: Post‑pilot? August decision gate; cost/student ~$475; three renewal prospects identified - Governance/process: Strategic fit? Aligns to Goal 2.1 access equity (Board‑approved 6/2024) - Financial exposure: Worst case? $2,800 gap + ~$1,200 close‑out; covered by board reserve policy - Community impact: Outcomes? 45 teens/semester; attendance + arts self‑efficacy pre/post (FY2025 tool) - Implementation capacity: Can team deliver? 0.25 FTE hire; TA bench of 6; paused nonessentials
6) Presentation Flow Elements - Transitions: “Why Saturdays” → “What it takes” → “How we manage risk” → “What youth said” - Visual cues: ON SCREEN—data charts, budget table, options; SPOKEN—asks, mitigations, story - Human element: “Saturdays mean I don’t have to choose work over art.” — A., 16, Winter Studio, Jan 2026
7) Board Dynamics Management - Invite quieter voices: After Budget—Youth Alum Jamal R.; then Treasurer Ms. Chen - If Treasurer dominates: Appreciate diligence; refer details to Finance; return to today’s decision - Defer to committee/staff on: Payroll setup; grant reporting clauses; volunteer background checks - Read-the-room cues: If >3 finance questions, park items; move to motion and vote
8) Closing (30 seconds) - Recap: Clear demand and mission fit; time‑bound pilot with metrics; small, covered gap - Restate ask: Motion—approve 6‑month Saturday pilot; accept $35k restricted grant; authorize 0.25 FTE - Decision timeline: Vote 3/12/2026; sign grant by 3/15/2026 - Next steps/owners: ED sign grant 3/15; Program Mgr hire teaching artist 4/1; Ops set payroll 3/25
9) Parking Lot - Grant compliance checklist—Treasurer - Payroll setup details—Operations Manager - Volunteer MOUs and background checks—Program Manager - Space‑sharing MOU with Library—Executive Director
AI Evaluation Details (Score: 9/10)
This is an exceptionally strong output that demonstrates deep understanding of nonprofit board dynamics and presentation best practices. It balances warmth with professionalism, provides concrete data points with sources, and anticipates real governance concerns. The talking points are actionable, realistic about capacity constraints, and mission-centered—exactly what a small nonprofit ED would need.
- • Perfect tone calibration: warm but professional, with authentic nonprofit language ('sliding scale,' 'transit stipends,' 'board reserve policy') that avoids jargon
- • Excellent specificity: every metric includes source and timeframe (FY2025 Q2, Jan 2026), dollar amounts are precise, and capacity trade-offs are honest ('pause newsletter redesign')
- • Outstanding board dynamics section: realistic strategies for managing dominant voices, inviting youth perspectives, and reading the room—shows deep sector knowledge
- • Strong risk management: anticipated questions cover all governance bases (safety, equity, sustainability, financial exposure) with evidence-based responses
- • Authentic human element: the youth quote is brief, attributed, and emotionally resonant without being manipulative
- • Practical presentation flow: clear ON SCREEN vs. SPOKEN guidance helps presenter avoid reading slides
- • Realistic capacity acknowledgment: explicitly names what will pause (newsletter) and ED coverage—refreshingly honest for nonprofit context
- • Time management: agenda breakdown totals exactly 15 minutes with Q&A pauses, showing attention to detail
- • Minor completeness gap: Section 4 'Financial Summary' repeats the budget scenarios verbatim from the template rather than fully integrating them into the narrative flow—feels slightly formulaic
- • The 'Community Feedback' section (added as optional 4th section) compresses important co-design details into 1 minute, which may feel rushed given its equity importance
- • Parking Lot adds a 4th item (Space-sharing MOU) not in the original template values—while realistic, it's a minor deviation from strict prompt adherence
Mid-Size Professional Org
Colorado Association of School Counselors—statewide membership nonprofit (budget ~$3.2M) serving urban/rural counselors; revenue from dues, conference fees, and corporate sponsors.
View scenario details
1) Opening Frame (30 seconds) - Mission anchor: Grow counselor capacity statewide to improve student mental health outcomes. - Urgency: Venue hold expires 4/25; early-bird build needs May contract to launch. - Clear ask: We need the board to DECIDE on contract, pricing tiers, and deposit authorization.
2) Agenda Overview (total 30 minutes; Q&A after each section) - Attendance Trends & Equity — 7.5 minutes (incl. 2 min Q&A) - Financial Projections — 8 minutes (incl. 3 min Q&A) - Venue & Risk Mitigation — 8 minutes (incl. 3 min Q&A) - Sponsor Strategy — 6.5 minutes (incl. 2 min Q&A)
3) Section Content Bullets Section: Attendance Trends & Equity • Downtown venue boosts access; tiered pricing protects affordability and margin. • FY2024 post-survey: 912 attendees; 27% rural; 14% scholarships used (Oct 2024). • More counselors trained statewide; equity gains; supports year-round programs.
Section: Financial Projections • Price tiers: Member Early $245; Member Standard $295; Nonmember $375; Student $135. • Q1 FY2026 dashboard: 11% list growth; 18% repeat rate uptick vs. FY2024. • Balanced plan with contingency; preserves scholarships; funds critical PD content.
Section: Venue & Risk Mitigation • Downtown Denver venue: light rail access; ADA-certified; union-inclusive AV terms. • Contract cap: 10% F&B attrition; 80% room block; 24-month force majeure (legal review). • Reduce cancellation exposure; protect attendee experience; clear contingency triggers.
Section: Sponsor Strategy • Secure anchor sponsors; align with MTSS, SEL, and college access strands. • Pipeline: $98.5k secured; $40k verbal; close by 5/31 (CRM, Jan–Mar 2026). • Offset AV/F&B inflation; preserve member pricing; add equity travel grants.
4) Financial Summary - Budget impact: $162,000 venue contract; October 2026 event; 25% deposit due 5/1/2026. - Funding status: Sponsorship secured $98,500; pending $40,000; gap $23,500. - Gap scenarios with trade-offs • Option A: Raise nonmember +$40; +$28k; risk modest nonmember drop (-3–5%). • Option B: Reduce AV package; save $12k; quality risk for hybrid/recordings. • Option C: Cap scholarships at 12%; save $10k; equity impact for rural/Title I. - Capacity note: Events team 1.5 FTE; pause member webinars Sept–Oct; temp reg support.
5) Anticipated Questions - Risk: What if attendance softens? Conservative break-even at 780; FY2024 actual 912. - Equity/access: Will rural counselors be priced out? 75 travel scholarships; 20 virtual seats (FY2026 plan). - Sustainability: Why downtown cost? Transit access increased rural attendance 9% in 2024 (post-survey). - Governance/process: Who reviewed terms? Finance & Events Committee and Audit Chair, April 2026. - Financial exposure: Worst-case liability? 20% cancellation cap; rebook clause; insurance rider (broker, Mar 2026). - Community impact: How many served? 1,000 counselor target; impacts ~250k students (ASCA counselor ratios, 2025). - Implementation capacity: Can staff deliver? Detailed run-of-show; temps sourced; vendor SLAs in place.
6) Presentation Flow Elements - Transitions: From who attends to how we fund; from dollars to risks; from risks to sponsors. - Visual cues: On screen—charts, pricing table, timeline; Spoken—contract protections, contingencies, quotes. - Human element: “Travel stipend made it possible for me to attend from Alamosa.” — Maria G., Oct 2024.
7) Board Dynamics Management - Invite quieter voices: After Equity section invite Rural Rep Kim Lee; before vote ask Treasurer. - If Dr. Marcus Harris dominates: Acknowledge; timebox; move policy proposals to Governance agenda. - Defer to committee/staff on: Force majeure/cancellation; accessibility compliance; scholarship criteria. - Read-the-room cues: If debate >10 minutes, call question on pricing; park AV specs.
8) Closing (30 seconds) - Recap: Access and equity improve; balanced budget with contingencies; contract risks mitigated. - Restate ask: Approve venue contract and tiered pricing; authorize 25% deposit. - Decision timeline: Vote 4/23 to hold venue before 4/25 expiration. - Next steps/owners: ED sign 4/24; Treasurer send deposit 4/25; Events open registration 6/1.
9) Parking Lot - Scholarship policy review — Governance Chair. - AV sponsor ask — Development Director. - Accessibility audit — Events Manager. - Hybrid streaming feasibility — IT lead.
AI Evaluation Details (Score: 8.8/10)
This is a highly polished, board-ready document that demonstrates strong command of nonprofit governance practices. It balances formal financial decision-making with mission-centered framing, includes concrete metrics with proper attribution, and anticipates realistic board dynamics. Minor weaknesses include slightly generic transitions and one overly optimistic capacity claim.
- • Excellent financial transparency with three realistic budget scenarios including specific trade-offs (Option A: +$28k vs. nonmember risk; Option B: $12k savings vs. quality; Option C: $10k vs. equity impact)
- • Strong concrete metrics with proper sourcing throughout (FY2024 post-survey: 912 attendees, 27% rural, 14% scholarships; Q1 FY2026: 11% list growth, 18% repeat uptick)
- • Sophisticated board dynamics management that names specific members and situations (Dr. Marcus Harris redirect strategy; inviting Rural Rep Kim Lee after Equity section)
- • Realistic capacity acknowledgment (1.5 FTE Events team; pausing member webinars Sept-Oct; temp registration support)
- • Practical risk mitigation details that show actual contract review (10% F&B attrition cap; 80% room block; 24-month force majeure; legal review noted)
- • Authentic human element with attributed beneficiary quote (Maria G., Alamosa, Oct 2024)
- • Clear decision urgency tied to real deadline (venue hold expires 4/25; deposit due 5/1)
- • Comprehensive anticipated questions with evidence-based responses including conservative break-even analysis (780 vs. 912 actual)
- • Transition lines in Section 6 are somewhat generic ('From who attends to how we fund') compared to the specificity elsewhere—could be more substantive bridges
- • The capacity note claims 'detailed run-of-show; temps sourced; vendor SLAs in place' which may be overly confident for a contract not yet approved—creates potential credibility gap
- • Parking Lot adds 'Hybrid streaming feasibility—IT lead' not mentioned in scenario data, though this is a minor addition that's contextually reasonable
Large Established Org
RiverWatch Foundation—large multi-state environmental nonprofit (budget ~$38M) based in a major metro; projects serve rural river communities; donors include major donors, corporate partners, and federal grants.
View scenario details
1) Opening Frame (30 seconds) - Mission anchor: Protect river communities with science-driven flood resilience; lives, homes, small businesses - Urgency: Winter 2026 floods; FEMA BRIC match window closes 5/31/2026; construction inflation rising - Clear ask: We need the board to DECIDE: approve $28M goal, $1.2M campaign budget, naming policy, quiet-phase start
2) Agenda Overview (total 45 minutes; Q&A after each) - Case for Support & Community Impact – 10 min + 3 min Q&A - Feasibility Study Findings – 7 min + 3 min Q&A - Financial Model & Risk Scenarios – 10 min + 5 min Q&A - Governance/Naming Policies – 5 min + 2 min Q&A
3) Section Content Bullets Section: Case for Support & Community Impact - Launch River Data Lab; 300 new sensors; predictive models; community preparedness hubs - 3 major floods in 18 months; $124M regional damages (NOAA/State, 2025–Q1 2026) - Protect 2.1M residents; prioritize 11 low‑income river towns; faster evacuations, fewer losses
Section: Feasibility Study Findings - CCS feasibility (Mar 2026): 42 interviews; 78% favor; strong urgency signal - $9.1M indicated early; 11 prospects at $500K+; board leadership pivotal - Recommend 18‑month quiet phase; visibility of federal match boosts asks
Section: Financial Model & Risk Scenarios - Total need $28M; capital/tech $22M; endowment ops $4M; contingency $2M - Secured $6.4M leads; pending $3M FEMA BRIC; gap $18.6M (as of 5/1/2026) - Options: A 24‑month sprint; B floor $22M/stretch $28M; C postpone—match risk
Section: Governance/Naming Policies - Adopt naming matrix; equity screen; floors: facility $1M; labs $100K; sensors $25K - Gift acceptance diligence; no fossil extraction naming; conflict‑of‑interest compliance - Timeline: Framework today; final policy by 6/30; public posting thereafter
4) Financial Summary - Budget impact: $28M over 5 years; quiet phase 18 months; launch June 2026 - Funding status: $6.4M leads secured; $3M federal match pending; gap $18.6M - Scenarios/trade‑offs: • Option A: 24‑month sprint—fast impact; higher cash‑flow risk; peak staffing • Option B: Phased floor $22M/stretch $28M—manageable cadence; potential lower momentum • Option C: Postpone—no immediate risk; lose match; reputational drag - Capacity: Add 3 FTE in Advancement; pause rebrand project FY2026; retain campaign counsel
5) Anticipated Questions - Risk: If match denied—execute floor plan at $22M; protect core scope (FEMA BRIC award rates ~35%, FY2024) - Equity/access: Prioritize 11 towns below 80% AMI; bilingual alerts; MOUs signed (Q1 FY2026 dashboard) - Sustainability: O&M $1.5M/year; covered by $4M endowment draw + municipal MOUs (FY2027 pro forma) - Governance/process: Naming exceptions via Governance Committee; full board ratification; annual review (Policy draft v0.9, May 2026) - Financial exposure: $1.2M campaign budget = 4.3% cost to raise; within AFP 5–10% benchmark (AFP 2024) - Community impact: Riverton Jan 2026 pilot—6‑hour lead time; ~$3.2M damages avoided (County After‑Action, Feb 2026) - Implementation capacity: PMO in place; counsel retained (CCS); 98.7% sensor uptime (Q1 FY2026)
6) Presentation Flow Elements - Transitions: From need to will—community risk to donor will; from will to numbers—what it costs; from numbers to guardrails—how we govern - Visual cues: On screen—maps, timeline, budget bars; Spoken only—prospect names, risk mitigations - Human element: “The alert saved my shop and my neighbor’s home.” — Mr. Alvarez, Riverton, 1/12/2026
7) Board Dynamics Management - Invite quieter voices: After Feasibility—ask Co‑Chairs Ms. Delgado and Mr. Singh; then CFO - If Mr. Greene dominates—thank generosity; suggest pledge structuring offline; return to vote cadence - Defer to committees/staff: Naming rights policy; gift acceptance thresholds; campaign expense ratio - Read‑the‑room: If naming debate >5 minutes—park for Governance; proceed to decision
8) Closing (30 seconds) - Recap: Urgent climate case; feasibility supports $28M; risks mitigated with staffing plan - Ask: Approve $28M campaign goal, $1.2M budget, and quiet‑phase launch - Decision timeline: Vote today 5/16/2026 to align with 5/31/2026 match deadline - Next steps: CEO appoint Campaign Director 6/1; CFO finalize budget 6/15; Board adopt naming matrix 6/30
9) Parking Lot - Naming matrix details and exceptions—Governance Chair - Federal match application packet—Policy Director - Prospect pipeline depth and sequences—Development VP - Donor due diligence thresholds—Finance Committee - County data‑sharing MOU—Programs Director
AI Evaluation Details (Score: 8.8/10)
This is an exceptionally strong board presentation framework that demonstrates sophisticated understanding of nonprofit governance and capital campaign dynamics. The output is comprehensive, actionable, and appropriately calibrated for a high-stakes decision at a large environmental organization. Minor weaknesses include slightly formulaic transitions and dense information load that may challenge the 45-minute timeframe.
- • Excellent strategic framing linking urgent climate events to federal funding deadline, creating genuine urgency without manufactured pressure
- • Sophisticated risk scenario modeling (Options A/B/C) with realistic trade-offs that respect board fiduciary duty and organizational capacity constraints
- • Strong use of concrete, credible metrics with proper attribution (CCS feasibility study, NOAA damage figures, AFP benchmarks, Q1 FY2026 sensor uptime)
- • Thoughtful board dynamics management, particularly the tactful handling of potential major donor domination and clear committee delegation boundaries
- • Authentic human element with specific beneficiary quote tied to measurable impact ($3.2M damages avoided in Riverton pilot)
- • Realistic capacity planning that names specific trade-offs (pause rebrand, add 3 FTE, retain counsel) rather than assuming unlimited bandwidth
- • Well-structured parking lot that assigns clear ownership and prevents derailment of the decision vote
- • Equity considerations genuinely integrated (11 towns below 80% AMI, bilingual alerts, MOUs) rather than performative add-ons
- • Agenda timing may be optimistic—four sections with Q&A in 45 minutes leaves only ~5 minutes closing/buffer; Financial Model section particularly dense
- • Transition lines feel slightly mechanical ('From need to will—community risk to donor will'); could be more conversational for a 45-minute format
- • Naming policy detail in Section 4 (facility $1M, labs $100K, sensors $25K) may trigger extended debate that the parking lot strategy anticipates but doesn't fully prevent
- • The 'Visual cues' guidance is somewhat generic; could specify which slides correspond to which bullets for tighter presenter preparation
Test Summary: Generated Nov 2, 2025 • 3 scenarios • 9 total outputs • Average quality score: 8.69/10 • Total validation cost: $0.3140