Volunteer Directors
Our Board of Directors
Our nonprofit board of directors includes five volunteer directors. None of them are paid. All of them are accountable for what this organization does in Vallejo.
Bre Jackson
Board Chair
Marco Cardenas
Founder · Board Member
Lived expertiseRead his story
Marco Cardenas founded Pathfinders for Hope after seven years navigating homelessness across America. Starting in San Angelo and San Antonio, Texas, he built a successful cleaning business before losing everything to COVID in 2020. What followed was a journey through homelessness that took him across the West — and through every homeless services agency that turned him away. In San Diego, he educated himself on life issues and the systemic failures he experienced, which became the foundation for Pathfinders for Hope. He got out in 2022. Now he builds Operation Iron Gate to ensure no one gets lost the way he did.
Jose Carrizales
Board Member
12 years lived expertiseIn his words
“I contribute to the Board 12 years of Lived Expertise which includes actual Homelessness, years of committee memberships, and speaking roles at national conferences. My lived Expertise will provide great insight, knowledge, and awareness to the plight of the Unsheltered issue.”
Ronald Hamilton
Board Member
Dr. Antoinette Olivarez
Board Member
Apply to the Vallejo pilot.
Operation Iron Gate is being built in Vallejo with the organizations already doing this work. Participating organizations list the services they can accept referrals for, so every handoff has a known destination and a documented outcome.
HOW OUR NONPROFIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS PROVIDES OVERSIGHT
MISSION BEFORE MOMENTUM
HONEST PILOT STATUS
LIVED EXPERTISE WITH GOVERNANCE RESPONSIBILITY
RESPONSIBLE PARTNERSHIPS
CLEAR PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY
GOVERNANCE STANDARDS
HOW TO EVALUATE BOARD ACCOUNTABILITY
Residents, partners, and supporters should be able to evaluate a nonprofit board of directors by looking for clear evidence of responsibility, not slogans. The following questions provide a practical way to review whether board oversight matches the public mission.
Public accuracy. Does the nonprofit board of directors clearly distinguish services available now from a proposed pilot, future capability, or design target? Claims should match the organization’s current status. Corrections should be made when important information changes.
Mission alignment. Can the board explain how a major decision supports the organization’s purpose and the people it is meant to serve? New technology, fundraising, partnerships, and public commitments should be tested against mission, dignity, access, and follow-through.
Independent judgment. Do directors ask questions, identify risk, and consider perspectives beyond the founder or any single professional role? A nonprofit board of directors should strengthen decisions through collective oversight. Founder experience matters, but it does not eliminate the need for board review.
Responsible boundaries. Does the organization state what it controls and what belongs to another provider, agency, or public system? Pathfinders for Hope cannot promise another organization’s eligibility decision, availability, service, housing placement, or records. Board oversight should protect that boundary.
Accessible accountability. Can a resident, partner, or supporter find the board roster, current pilot status, editorial standards, and a clear way to contact the organization? Transparency is strongest when people can verify who is responsible, what has been approved, and what remains under development.
These checks do not turn a board page into a legal report. They give the public a direct standard for judging whether the five volunteer directors are treating governance as active responsibility. The goal is not to claim perfection. The goal is to make the board’s responsibilities visible and reviewable.
WHAT THE BOARD REVIEWS AS THE PILOT DEVELOPS
A volunteer board needs a clear review discipline as a pilot moves from concept toward implementation. For Pathfinders for Hope, the following areas define what the board should keep visible during planning and future decision-making.
Planning boundaries. The board should be able to identify which parts of Operation Iron Gate are proposals, which parts are design requirements, and which parts have been tested in actual operations. A planned workflow target is not an outcome. A conversation with an organization is not a partnership. A referral pathway is not available until the responsible organizations have confirmed it. Keeping those categories separate prevents planning language from becoming a public promise.
Public claims and evidence. The nonprofit board of directors should ask what evidence supports an important statement before that statement is published. Evidence may include an official public source, an approved organizational record, a documented decision, or a clearly labeled firsthand account. When evidence is limited, the language should be limited too. If a material fact changes, the organization should correct the page and preserve a clear explanation of the current status.
Consent and privacy boundaries. Any future referral-accountability work must respect the person’s authorization and the participating organization’s responsibilities. Board oversight should ask what information is necessary, who may see it, how access is recorded, and what happens when a person declines an optional question. The goal is not to collect the most information. The goal is to support a clear handoff while limiting access to what the agreed purpose requires.
Partnership commitments. Before Pathfinders for Hope describes another organization as a participant, the relationship should be confirmed by the people authorized to make that commitment. The board should ask what each organization has agreed to do, what it has not agreed to do, who owns the next action, and how either party can correct a misunderstanding. Strong partnership language is specific. It does not exaggerate a meeting, introduction, or expression of interest.
Follow-through and correction. Accountability does not end when a decision is approved. The board should ask whether the decision produced the expected result, created an unintended barrier, or needs revision. When a public page, pilot rule, or partner description is wrong, the organization should correct it. When a plan changes, the reason should be understandable. Reviewable decisions build more trust than statements that pretend nothing ever needs adjustment.
These review areas give the five directors a shared way to examine growth without weakening the mission. They also give residents, organizations, and supporters a clearer basis for evaluating Pathfinders for Hope. Board oversight is strongest when responsibilities can be explained before a problem occurs and reviewed honestly after a decision is made.