The forecasted shortfall could be avoided by not having an Executive Director. The chart below analyses some broad alternatives, starting with the board of directors. A committee in charge normally means slow decisions, disruptive conflicts, and poor accountability. Volunteers can make considerable contributions, but generally only in bursts, because usually they must put NCF second to other things in their lives. For maximum results, pay people so they can contribute maximum time and energy.
Good people can easily earn their compensation in benefits to the owners.
The detachment of a governance board allows them to act as a board of appeal for people not satisfied with the person in charge. Also, the plan gives a feel for how clever the team is, and thus how much confidence the board can have in staff to react to unexpected future events and still meet the targets. It is non-productive to plan in great detail the future is too uncertain but it is necessary for the board to get a feel that plans are broadly reasonable and that the staff can meet targets. Having one person in charge of meeting donation targets, and having a governance board holding that person accountable for meeting those targets, leads to a clean interface between the board and the organization. It helps the ED avoid micro-management by the board, and it helps the board hold the ED accountable for results.