Last week, the New York Times reported that the League of Women Voters did more than raise some eyebrows with its high-profile television ads calling out two US Senators for voting to limit the EPA’s regulatory ability to enforce such standards as the Clean Air Act. The ads, costing $1.5 million, targeted Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill (MO) and Republican Senator Scott Brown (MA), both of whom are up for re-election in 2012.

Brown’s camp accused the League of siding with a “liberal” agenda, while McCaskill and other Democrats also cried foul, calling the ads “not helpful.” But beneath the predictable campaign damage control lies the fact that those on both sides of the political aisle were so utterly shocked that an organization like the League of Women Voters would take such a direct approach.

Accustomed to the League’s more comforting strategies of publishing voter guides and politely issuing position statements, even some League members themselves were taken aback when the organization finally raised its voice to be heard over the noise in the modern political arena.

It was this break in character, in fact, that made the ads so powerful.

I’ve experienced this myself, on a personal level. With a quiet demeanor and a tendency to listen and analyze information in group settings rather than express every idea that comes into my head, it’s a rarity when I speak up, drive home a point, or voice frustration or dissent. But when I do, you can bet I have the ears of the group. And I also understand that with that power comes the responsibility to use it wisely, lest I lose it.

The League of Women Voters’ recent decision to step outside of its own comfort zone, and to risk its image in the minds of others who prefer its more passive persona, is one that I was glad to see it make – not only because it seemed to confirm that the organization does have power at its disposal, but because as League advocacy committee chairwoman Judy Duffy said to the Times, it honors the activism of its founding mothers, who “were not shrinking violets.” At the same time, I hope that it continues to wield this power judiciously, in a way that strengthens its identity, rallies its constituents, and advances its mission.

In what ways might your organization – or you as a professional – consider judiciously stepping outside your box to take a stand, flex your power, or make your voice heard?

Last week’s New York Times article, Romancing the Stars, describes how some New York arts organizations have gone a step further in seeking celebrity support by asking them to sit on their boards.

I cringe every time I read about a celebrity joining the board of an organization.  Board members are trustees and each board member is equally accountable for insuring that the organization is properly governed. These roles include:

• Determining the Organization’s Mission and Purpose
• Selecting the Executive
• Supporting the Executive and Reviewing His or Her Performance
• Ensuring Effective Organizational Planning
• Ensuring Adequate Resources
• Manage Resources Effectively
• Determine and Monitor the Organization’s Programs and Services

I doubt if most celebrities realize that if the organizations fails to pay its payroll taxes the individual board members are legally liable or if the organization is in debt and has to close, the board is the body to blame.  If an organization wants to engage a celebrity they should consider asking them to be on an honorary board or co-chair of an advisory body to the board.