Over on The Nonprofiteer, I grapple with the justification for philanthropy which fails (as mine does) to increase Disability-Adjusted Life Years in the developing world. Not entirely satisfied with my arguments and would welcome any and all assistance.
The Nonprofiteer is at it again, gently suggesting that a Sun Microsystems billionaire isn’t necessarily the world’s authority about how to combat poverty.Â But maybe fighting poverty isn’t what he had in mind after all.
Who taught people to say “charity” with a sneer?
I hold forth on/as the Nonprofiteer on the idiocy of our debating who should pay for public schools, and the extreme idiocy of our thinking it swell that the cradle of a democratic society should be controlled by individuals whom nobody elected.
In my guise as The Nonprofiteer, I suggest that the solution to poverty might be money.
Alert the media.Â No, really.
This is the smartest, ballsiest response Iâ€™ve seen to the omnipresent nonsense about how whatâ€™s wrong with philanthropy and charity is that theyâ€™re too soft-hearted and how all the problems of the world could be solved if they were just more rigorous and did their â€œdue diligenceâ€ and brought other failed concepts and consultant buzzwords over from the for-profit sector. What refreshing thoughtfulness and appropriate humility. Bravo, Mr. Scanlan!
cross-posted with nonprofiteer.net
There’s an old joke about a man who asks a woman to sleep with him for $1 million. She agrees, whereupon he asks her to sleep with him for $1. “What kind of a girl do you think I am?” asks the woman indignantly. “We’ve settled that,” replies the man, “We’re just arguing about the price.”
This came to mind in response to this story about the price of the Broad Foundation’s generosity to the schools of New Jersey. A recent Broad Foundation grant stipulates that it will be available only as long as Chris Christie remains governor.
Love this account of a pissing match between Warren Buffett and Mitch McConnell.Â The Senator from Kentucky has been urging the Sage of Omaha to make voluntary contributions to the Treasury if he felt he was undertaxed.Â Buffett has now responded that heâ€™ll match any such contributions made by Republican Senators.
This dialogue makes in a different form an argument offered by that raving lefty Milton Friedman.Â Voluntary contributions to reduce poverty (or do any of the other things we rely on the government to do) are insufficient, because everyone would be willing to pay his/her share only if s/he could be sure that everyone else would be willing to pay his/her share.Â Otherwise, no dice.
Doubtless McConnell will ignore Buffettâ€™s challenge and continue his nonsensical bluster about Buffettâ€™s freedom to pay extra if he feels â€œguiltyâ€ about his low tax rate.Â But the point isnâ€™t, of course, how Buffett feels, or even what he doesâ€”itâ€™s what everyone else does.Â And if McConnell and his buddies donâ€™t donate to the Treasury, then they are poster children for the free-rider problemâ€”thereby proving Buffett right: philanthropy is not sufficient and taxation is necessary.
H/T the indispensable Rick Cohen at The Nonprofit Quarterly.
Good Counsel: Meeting the Legal Needs of Nonprofits
by Lesley Rosenthal
(John Wiley & Sons 2012)
As I embarked on writing Good Counsel: Meeting the Legal Needs of Nonprofits, well-meaning and concerned folks cited at least three reasons why no one had written such a book before, and (implicitly) why I shouldnâ€™t try: itâ€™s too dangerous, too hard, too scary.
The â€œtoo-dangerousâ€ crowd, personified by some of the most successful leaders of nonprofit turnarounds on several continents, worried that legal information in non-lawyersâ€™ hands would result in the unlicensed practice of law by a bunch of irresponsible, budget-strapped do-it-yourself nonprofiteers. Who knows what kinds of mission mischief non-lawyers would make with their newfound knowledge â€“ the legal equivalent of sewing your own sutures! Fortunately my own boss, the President of Lincoln Center, and several of my other mentors before him, including a former Bar Association president and a federal judge, helped forge my conviction that the law belongs to the people. They encouraged my desire to put it into plain English for all to know.
The â€œtoo-hardâ€ folks, also well meaning, recognized the enormous variety of laws that commonly arise in nonprofits and thought it impossible to provide a general overview in one volume. I know what they meant: the tangle of specialized state and federal laws that make our sector one of the most highly regulated in the whole economy, such as state nonprofit corporations laws, Section 501(c) of the internal revenue code, IRS rules, regulations and expectations surrounding the tax exemption and good governance, multi-level filing and disclosure requirements, pension, endowment and investment laws, lobbying restrictions, and a web of 50 different statesâ€™ fundraising laws. Many fine books have been written on each of these subjects, but rare is the legal resource that touches upon them all. Then, the skeptics continued, there are also general business laws that apply to these organizations â€“ contract law, labor and employment laws, intellectual property laws, consumer regulatory laws, real estate laws, building codes and more. And business laws apply to the nonprofit sector in weird ways not necessarily intended by lawmakers, forcing volunteer-driven organizations, for example, to think long and hard about how to structure their activities to comply with minimum wage and hours laws. Pile on top of all of those layers the additional specialized laws that apply to the wide world of nonprofits, such as FDA regs for blood banks, student privacy laws for higher ed, permitting and accreditation for hospitals and mental health facilities and so on, and the whole enterprise of writing a book about the legal context of nonprofits threatens to die under its own weight.
The â€œtoo-scaryâ€ people are the most sympathetic people of all. They are the good-hearted lawyers who are already serving as counsel, as board members â€“ or as both simultaneously â€“ to nonprofit organizations. Their values may line up perfectly with the mission of the organization they serve â€“ an elder care lawyer, for example, serving on the board of a community-based senior center, a real estate lawyer counseling a neighborhood development organization, a sports and entertainment lawyer doing board duty on her townâ€™s local Little League or scout troop â€“ but their legal expertise may be far afield of the legal issues facing the organization. It scares them to no end when a legal question arises in the boardroom and all eyes turn toward them. UBIT â€“ whatâ€™s that? Conflict of interest policy pertaining to co-investment interests? Ugh. Section 501(h) election for lobbying activities? Isnâ€™t this meeting almost over? They could have just begged off answering these questions â€“ thatâ€™s not my area of law, you see, you wouldnâ€™t ask a dermatologist about your chest pains, would you? â€“ if only Good Counsel didnâ€™t exist to connect the dots between the law they do know and the law they need to know to better serve their favorite charity.
Good Counsel is intended â€“ charitably â€“ to defy all three objections. In 300 pages it places the law of nonprofits in the hands of board members that oversee and executives that actually run the organizations â€“ CEOs, CFOs, program managers and staff, fundraisers, personnel directors, communications professionals, operations and facilities managers and more. Does it answer every question? No. Does it sensitize non-lawyers to common legal issues in the highly regulated context in which they operate? I sure hope so.
Lawyers who make their living practicing in this field neednâ€™t worry that this one volume will displace them; to the contrary, placed in the right hands, the book will generate more sophisticated questions and ultimately more and better client relationships. Corporate and transactional lawyers who have not yet found an outlet for their volunteer yearnings â€“ because it seems that most pro bono projects are more aligned with the skills of litigators, not business lawyers â€“ may feel empowered to see how readily they can translate what they know to the legal needs of prospective nonprofit corporate clients.
Law school deans concerned about the criticism being leveled at the entire enterprise of legal education may find a path forward in Good Counsel. With case studies, work plans and focus questions following each chapter, the book lays out a path for law students supervised by clinical professors to engage with a particular nonprofit organization and assess its legal needs â€“ growing the studentsâ€™Â legal skills and stretching their capacities as counselors in ways that will serve them well even if they do end up in private practice after graduation, as most do.
And the legal profession, which despite the canon of lawyer jokes is as public-spirited as any I know, may find that Good Counsel can be used to foster and strengthen more pro bono relationships between lawyers and organizations. There is a great deal of goodwill for nonprofit organizations among public-spirited lawyers. I know, because I have been both a purveyor and voracious consumer of pro bono legal services, that there is more time and willingness to serve among the legal profession than has been fully tapped to date. A pilot program of the New York State Bar Association and the New York Attorney Generalâ€™s Office Charities Bureau has adopted Good Counsel as a training resource for that very purpose: to help launch up to 50 new pro bono relationships between lawyers and charities in the initial pilot year of a program called Charity Corps: Lawyers Helping Nonprofits.
Far too many of our nationâ€™s one million public charities lack regular access to counsel. At the same time, good-hearted lawyers are floundering in their efforts to help their favorite nonprofits, or are afraid to try because they think the field is so distant from subject matter they know. Law students graduate in debt up to their ears but lacking the practical skills they need to begin servicing clients after law school. Good Counsel is a playbook, intended for all three audiences.
And while I admit it was a little hard, scary and dangerous, ultimately there were far more supporters than skeptics for this project. I invite readers â€“ lawyers, nonprofit leaders, and academics â€“ to take a look and let me know if it works.
Schedule of upcoming Good Counsel events in NYC, LA, Detroit, Miami, Philadelphia, Boston, DC and Buffalo, NY available on www.facebook.com/GoodCounselBookÂ or at the book’s website, www.goodcounselbook.com.
Available for purchase at http://www.amazon.com/dp/1118084047/ref=rdr_ext_tmb
Review copies for academics, media, upon requestÂ to firstname.lastname@example.org
Ellen Alberding’s interview with the Chicago Tribune in advance of the Independent Sector‘s meeting in Chicago earlier this week was not her, or philanthropy’s, finest hour.Â Ms. Alberding, head of the Joyce Foundation, described the Foundation’s approach to what even she characterizes as a perfect storm of increased need and reduced resources in the nonprofit sector:
We do what any good business person would do when faced with reduced resources. We have become very focused on first maintaining support of our core grantees. Foundations are required to spend a minimum amount â€” 5 percent of our assets. On occasion, we will overspend that in order to keep our grantees whole.
In other words, business as usual.Â Most likely the Joyce Foundation’s governing documents prevent its Board from spending its assets down to zero, but there’s no reason why the Foundation shouldn’t use more than the statutory minimum 5% of its $800 million in assets to sustain the work it exists to support.Â Foundations are NOT businesses; they exist to give their money away, and only in some vague theoretical sense is an institution with $800 million facing constraints preventing it from giving away more than $40 million.
If Joyce gave only 6% instead, that would be another $8 million available to nonprofits in its areas of concern—a not-insubstantial 20% increase. Â What is stopping the Foundation from doing this, other than a misguided sense that preserving its capital is more important than doing its job?
And then the cherry on the sundae:
It’s the position of the Independent Sector that a cap [on charitable deductions] will reduce charitable contributions across the board and diminish support for nonprofit organizations. I believe it’s the administration’s view that the 28 percent cap might have some impact, but it wouldn’t have a dire impact. (But) I think we have to listen to the organizations themselves, who feel otherwise.
In other words, their minds are made up—don’t confuse them with the facts.Â Notwithstanding reality, the prejudices of self-interested parties will dictate the organization’s behavior.Â Â Â Well, as it is written, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”Â As President of the organization, doesn’t it behoove Ms. Alberding to make sure her members don’t make their decisions based on fantasy?